| Title |
Residual hemifacial spasm after microvascular decompression: prognostic factors with emphasis on preoperative psychological state
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurosurgical Review, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10143-015-0622-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yichao Jin, Changyi Zhao, Shanshan Su, Xiaohua Zhang, Yongming Qiu, Jiyao Jiang |
| Abstract |
Residual hemifacial spasm (HFS) after microvascular decompression (MVD) is common, and the factors associated with residual HFS are still controversial. In the present study, we analyzed the outcome of 212 patients with hemifacial spasm after a single microvascular decompression and evaluated the prognostic factors involved in residual hemifacial spasm. Based on our study, possible prognostic factors included indentation of the root exit zone (REZ), preoperative illness duration, and preoperative psychological state. We suggest that MVD should be performed as early as possible for it may decrease the rate of residual HFS. Preoperative assessment of psychological state in HFS patients is a timely intervention that should be implemented to minimize the residual HFS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 14% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,503
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#343
of 623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,117
of 264,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 623 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 264,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.