↓ Skip to main content

Large-magnitude Pelvic and Retroperitoneal Tissue Damage Predicts Organ Failure

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Large-magnitude Pelvic and Retroperitoneal Tissue Damage Predicts Organ Failure
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4676-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Greg Gaski, Travis Frantz, Scott Steenburg, Teresa Bell, Todd McKinley

Abstract

Pelvic and retroperitoneal trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in multiply injured patients. The Injury Severity Score (ISS) has been criticized for underrepresenting and inaccurately defining mechanical injury. The influence of pelvic injury volume on organ dysfunction and multiple organ failure (MOF) has not been described. Through the use of CT, this investigation sought to precisely define volumes of mechanical tissue damage by anatomic region and examine its impact on organ failure. (1) Do patients with MOF have a greater volume of pelvic and retroperitoneal tissue damage when compared with those without MOF? (2) In patients who sustained pelvic trauma, does the magnitude of pelvic injury differ in patients with MOF? (3) Does the magnitude of organ dysfunction correlate with pelvic tissue damage volume? Seventy-four multiply injured patients aged 18 to 65 years with an ISS ≥ 18 admitted to the intensive care unit for a minimum of 6 days with complete admission CT scans were analyzed. Each identifiable injury in the head/neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis underwent volumetric determination using CT to generate regional tissue damage volume scores. Primary outcomes were the development of MOF as measured by the Denver MOF score and the degree of organ dysfunction by utilization of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Mean pelvic and retroperitoneal tissue damage volumes were compared in patients who developed MOF and those who did not develop MOF using Student's t-test. Among patients who sustained pelvic injuries, we compared mean volume of tissue damaged in patients who developed MOF and those who did not. We assessed whether there was a correlation between organ dysfunction, as measured by the SOFA score as a continuous variable, and the volume of pelvic and retroperitoneal tissue damage using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The average volume of tissue damage was greater in patients with MOF when compared with those without (MOF: 685.667 ± 1081.344; non-MOF: 195.511 ± 381.436; mean difference 490.156 cc [95% confidence interval {CI}, 50.076-930.237 cc], p = 0.030). Among patients who sustained pelvic injuries, those with MOF had higher average tissue damage volumes than those without MOF (MOF: 1322.000 ± 1197.050; non-MOF: 382.750 ± 465.005; mean difference 939.250 [95% CI, 229.267-1649.233], p = 0.013). Organ dysfunction (SOFA score) correlated with higher volumes of pelvic tissue damage (r = 0.570, p < 0.001). This investigation demonstrated that greater degrees of pelvic and retroperitoneal tissue damage calculated from injury CT scans in multiply injured patients is associated with more severe organ dysfunction and an increased risk of developing MOF. Early identification of polytrauma patients at risk of MOF allows clinicians to implement appropriate resuscitative strategies early in the disease course. Improved stratification of injury severity and a patient's anticipated clinical course may aid in the planning and execution of staged orthopaedic interventions. Future avenues of study should incorporate the ischemic/hypoperfusion component of pelvic injury in conjunction with the mechanical component presented here for improved stratification of multiply injured patients at higher risk of MOF. Level III, prognostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Psychology 2 8%
Computer Science 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,212,618
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,637
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,796
of 402,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#34
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 402,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 65% of its contemporaries.