↓ Skip to main content

The physiological rationale of heat and moisture exchangers in post-laryngectomy pulmonary rehabilitation: a review

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
The physiological rationale of heat and moisture exchangers in post-laryngectomy pulmonary rehabilitation: a review
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2005
DOI 10.1007/s00405-005-0969-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. K. Zuur, S. H. Muller, F. H. C. de Jongh, N. van Zandwijk, F. J. M. Hilgers

Abstract

Total laryngectomy results in a permanent disconnection of the upper and lower airways and inevitably leads to chronic pulmonary complaints like frequent involuntary coughing, increased sputum production and repeated daily forced expectoration to clean the airway. Heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs), applied in an attempt to compensate for the lost functions of the upper respiratory tract, have been found to diminish these symptoms and improve the quality of life significantly. An HME has three physical properties that might be responsible for these improvements. First, its heat and moisture exchanging capacity improves intra-airway preservation of heat and water. Since the condensation and evaporation of moisture are accompanied by the release and uptake of thermal energy, these parameters are inseparable. Secondly, the HME's resistance may reduce dynamic airway compression, thereby improving ventilation. Thirdly, to some extent, an HME might filter out particles, thereby cleaning inspiratory breathing air. This article summarizes our present knowledge of changes in respiratory physiology after total laryngectomy and the influence of the HME by reviewing the physiological impact of these three physical properties separately for in vitro and in vivo data.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Master 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 44%
Engineering 4 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2012.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#455
of 3,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,209
of 56,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,068 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 56,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them