↓ Skip to main content

Direct Revascularization With the Angiosome Concept for Lower Limb Ischemia

Overview of attention for article published in Medicine (Wolters Kluwer), August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Direct Revascularization With the Angiosome Concept for Lower Limb Ischemia
Published in
Medicine (Wolters Kluwer), August 2015
DOI 10.1097/md.0000000000001427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tzu-Yen Huang, Ting-Shuo Huang, Yao-Chang Wang, Pin-Fu Huang, Hsiu-Chin Yu, Chi-Hsiao Yeh

Abstract

The angiosome concept provides practical information regarding the vascular anatomy of reconstructive and vascular surgery for the treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease and, particularly, critical lower limb ischemia.The aim of the study was to confirm the efficacy of direct revascularization with the angiosome concept (DR) for lower limb ischemia.Complementary manual searches were performed through the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases.We searched all randomized and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) comparing DR with indirect revascularization (IR) (without the angiosome concept) for lower limb ischemia. Only 9 nonrandomized controlled retrospective cohort studies were found and included. Trials published in any language were included.Primary endpoints were time to limb amputation and time to wound healing. Data extraction and trial quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. A third author was consulted for disagreements settlement and quality assurance.Five NRSs involving 779 lower limbs revealed that DR significantly improved the overall survival of limbs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001; I = 0%). In addition, DR significantly improved time to wound healing (HR 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; P = 0.002; I = 0%, in 5 studies including 605 limbs).All included studies were retrospective comparative studies, and no consensus was obtained in describing wound conditions in the included studies.Our results suggested that treatment of lower limb ischemia using DR is more effective in salvaging limbs and healing wounds than IR is. Additional randomized controlled studies are necessary to confirm these results.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 60%
Engineering 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 23%
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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#9,624
of 16,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,336
of 279,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine (Wolters Kluwer)
#211
of 358 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,347 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 279,604 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 358 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.