↓ Skip to main content

Cuff-leak test combined with interventional bronchoscopy benefits early extubation for patients who received tarp surgery

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Cuff-leak test combined with interventional bronchoscopy benefits early extubation for patients who received tarp surgery
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4487-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian-qiang Dai, Wei-Feng Tu, Qing-shui Yin, Hong Xia, Guo-dong Zheng, Liang-da Zhang, Xian-hua Huang

Abstract

This study explored the performance characteristics of a cuff-leak test (CLT) combined with interventional fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FBS) for evaluating whether early nasoendotracheal extubation was possible for patients who had received transoral atlantoaxial reduction plate (TARP) internal fixation surgery. 318 patients who underwent surgery were retrospectively analyzed (between January 2006 and December 2012). Extubation was performed by conventional approach (CA group, until December 2008) and improved approach (IA group, from January 2009) including CLT and an interventional FBS procedure. The extubation success within 1-3 days after surgery, incidence of postextubation stridor and tracheal reintubation were examined. More IA-treated patients experienced extubation during the first 2 days than those CA-treated, median extubation time was 3 (2, 3) days in the CA group and 2 (1, 2) days in the IA group (all P < 0.01). The incidence of stridor and reintubation was 5.69 and 0.57 % in IA and 11.98 and 4.93 % in CA, respectively (both P < 0.05). For the CLT-positive patients in the IA group that remained intubated until day 3-4, interventional FBS was applied for safe extubation and achieved 100 % success. Early extubation through IA is safe and interventional FBS assists successful extubation for CLT-positive patients who underwent TARP surgery.

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 %
Librarian 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Unknown 6 40%
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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,640
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,368
of 298,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#76
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,965 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.