↓ Skip to main content

Transvenous embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations: a review of techniques, indications, and outcomes.

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Focus, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transvenous embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations: a review of techniques, indications, and outcomes.
Published in
Neurosurgical Focus, July 2018
DOI 10.3171/2018.3.focus18113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ching-Jen Chen, Pedro Norat, Dale Ding, George A C Mendes, Petr Tvrdik, Min S Park, M Yashar Kalani

Abstract

Endovascular embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) is conventionally performed from a transarterial approach. Transarterial AVM embolization can be a standalone treatment or, more commonly, used as a neoadjuvant therapy prior to microsurgery or stereotactic radiosurgery. In contrast to the transarterial approach, curative embolization of AVMs may be more readily achieved from a transvenous approach. Transvenous embolization is considered a salvage therapy in contemporary AVM management. Proposed indications for this approach include a small (diameter < 3 cm) and compact AVM nidus, deep AVM location, hemorrhagic presentation, single draining vein, lack of an accessible arterial pedicle, exclusive arterial supply by perforators, and en passage feeding arteries. Available studies of transvenous AVM embolization in the literature have reported high complete obliteration rates, with reasonably low complication rates. However, evaluating the efficacy and safety of this approach is challenging due to the limited number of published cases. In this review the authors describe the technical considerations, indications, and outcomes of transvenous AVM embolization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 24 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 41%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 25 34%
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 17 October 2019.
All research outputs
#20,233,045
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Focus
#1,586
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,158
of 342,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Focus
#32
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 1,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 342,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.