↓ Skip to main content

Can Vascular Injury be Appropriately Assessed With Physical Examination After Knee Dislocation?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Can Vascular Injury be Appropriately Assessed With Physical Examination After Knee Dislocation?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4730-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas S. Weinberg, Nicholas R. Scarcella, Joshua K. Napora, Heather A. Vallier

Abstract

Knee dislocations are rare injuries with potentially devastating vascular complications. An expeditious and accurate diagnosis is necessary, as failing to diagnose vascular injury can result in amputation; however, the best diagnostic approach remains controversial. We asked: (1) What patient factors are predictors of vascular injury after knee dislocation? (2) What are the diagnostic utilities of palpable dorsalis pedis or posterior tibial pulses, and the presence of an ankle-brachial index (ABI) of 0.9 or greater? A database at a Level I trauma center was queried for patients with evidence of knee dislocation, demographic information (age at the time of injury, sex, Injury Severity Score, BMI, mechanism of injury), and the presence of open injury were recorded. One-hundred forty-one patients underwent screening at initial presentation, of whom 26 (24%) underwent early vascular exploration based on an abnormal physical examination. One-hundred five (91%) of the remaining 115 patients were available at a minimum followup of 6 months (mean, 19 ± 10 months). In total, 31 unique patients were excluded, including 10 patients (7%) who were lost to followup before 6 months. Among the 110 patients who met inclusion criteria, the mean age and SD was 37 ± 13 years, and the Injury Severity Score was 15 ± 9. There were 71 males (65%). Logistic regression was used to determine independent correlates of vascular injury. The vascular examination was reviewed for the presence of a palpable pulse in the dorsalis pedis artery, the presence of a palpable pulse in the posterior tibial artery, and whether the ABI in the dorsalis pedis was 0.9 or greater. Contingency tables were generated to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of physical examination maneuvers. The physical examination was collectively regarded as "normal" when both pulses were palpable and the ABI was 0.9 or greater. The initial physical examination as just described was considered the diagnostic test being evaluated in this study; "positive" tests were evaluated by and confirmed at vascular surgery, and 6 months clinical followup without symptoms or progressive signs of vascular injury confirmed the absence of injury in the remainder of the patients. Contingency tables were generated again to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the combined physical examination. Increased BMI (odds ratio [OR], 1.077; 95% CI, 1.008-1.155; p = 0.033) and open injuries (OR, 3.366; 95% CI, 1.008-11.420; p = 0.048) were associated with vascular injury. No single physical examination maneuver had a 100% sensitivity for ruling out vascular injury. A normal physical examination (palpable pulses and ABI ≥ 0.9) had 100% sensitivity for ruling out vascular injury. Increased BMI and the presence of open dislocation are associated with a greater risk for vascular injury after knee dislocation. The combination of a palpable dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulse combined with an ABI of 0.9 or greater was 100% sensitive for the detection of vascular injury based on clinical followup at 6 months. Level III, diagnostic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 24%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Materials Science 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 17 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,630,850
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#426
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,656
of 405,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#10
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 405,737 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.