↓ Skip to main content

„Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta“

Overview of attention for article published in Die Unfallchirurgie, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
„Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta“
Published in
Die Unfallchirurgie, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00113-018-0503-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Elias, M. Engelhardt

Abstract

Severe hemorrhage remains the leading cause of death among trauma patients. Resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular alternative to the established emergency room thoracotomy with cross-clamping of the aorta in patients with severe abdominal or pelvic bleeding. The article reports on initial experiences with REBOA. Based on the literature and own experiences the pathophysiology, indications, contraindications, technical details and first results with REBOA are presented. The REBOA procedure is indicated in patients with treatment-refractive hemorrhagic shock with severe abdominal or pelvic bleeding. Via a transfemoral approach a balloon catheter is placed in the aorta and inflated. Depending on the indication the aortic occlusion is located in a supradiaphragmatic (zone 1) or infrarenal (zone 3) position. Experimental results proved a significant increase in central perfusion pressure after performance of REBOA. Furthermore, first clinical data indicate an improved patient survival rate after trauma. Improvements of the devices and minimizing the access trauma using small 7 Fr sheaths decreased the perioperative complication rate. The REBOA procedure is a promising endovascular technique for temporary stabilization of the circulation in patients with hemorrhagic shock. Further clinical studies and registries have yet to prove its superiority over emergency room thoracotomy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 41%
Researcher 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Unfallchirurgie
#266
of 819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,613
of 341,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Unfallchirurgie
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 819 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 341,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.