↓ Skip to main content

Reflection of pioneers: redo thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair controversies in thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery

Overview of attention for article published in General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Reflection of pioneers: redo thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair controversies in thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery
Published in
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11748-018-0978-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph S. Coselli

Abstract

Reoperative thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair is frequently necessary and brings with it a unique set of challenges. Typically, most reoperative repairs are necessitated by aortic disease progressing into previously healthy aortic tissue from a replaced section of the aorta (an extension of the previous repair) or, to a lesser degree, because of a late complication of prior distal aortic repair (an open or endovascular repair failure). Characterizing the reason for the reoperation as well as the location of prior repair is the first step towards anticipating major outcomes following such repair. Since the introduction of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysms, indications for open repair have become more specific and limited; many centers have justified using endovascular approaches in patients with prior open aortic repair by deeming these patients "high risk" because of their previous incision. Our analysis found that reoperative repairs were not typically subject to worse early outcomes than patients without prior distal aortic repair, except for the more complicated types of reoperation, which involve infection.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,645,475
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#231
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,547
of 331,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 331,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.