↓ Skip to main content

Intralabyrinthine Penetrating Ventilation Tube with Preservation of Hearing: An Unusual Clinical Situation

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Intralabyrinthine Penetrating Ventilation Tube with Preservation of Hearing: An Unusual Clinical Situation
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, December 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1386505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tantely Razafimahefa Raoelina, Maya Elziere, Justin Michel, Arnaud Devèze

Abstract

Introduction Traumatic perilymphatic fistula is not a rare event with regards to sport activities or traffic accident. However, iatrogenic damage to the inner ear can occur following the common use of grommets and ventilation tube insertion. Objectives To report an unusual case of insertion of aeration tube into the vestibule trough the stapes footplate. Resumed Report A 62-year-old woman experienced iatrogenic penetration into the vestibule from a ventilation tube inserted for retraction pocket management. The event was misdiagnosed both by the surgeon and by the emergency room physicians, leading to delay in the management. However, preservation of the hearing function lasted for 2 weeks prior to deafness, thanks to the valve of Bast, which preserved the cochlear fluid. Conclusion This case gives us the opportunity to stress the need for systematic clinical examination of traumatic injury to the ear and to recommend performing multiplanar millimetric computed tomography scan with accurate interpretation. Traumatic injuries should be referred to a dedicated traumatic emergency referral center.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 29%
Student > Master 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 36%
Engineering 2 14%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#223
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,423
of 356,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 356,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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 50% of its contemporaries.