↓ Skip to main content
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
103 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.
Article details
Title
Risk factors for surgical site infections and assessment of vancomycin powder as a preventive measure in patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery, May 2017
DOI 10.3171/2016.12.jns161967
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

OBJECTIVE Craniectomy is often performed to decrease intracranial pressure following trauma and vascular injuries. The subsequent cranioplasty procedures may be complicated by surgical site infections (SSIs) due to prior trauma, foreign implants, and multiple surgeries through a common incision. Several studies have found that intrawound vancomycin powder (VP) is associated with decreased risk of SSIs after spine operations. However, no previously published study has evaluated the effectiveness of VP in cranioplasty procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intrawound VP is associated with decreased risk of SSIs, to evaluate VP's safety, and to identify risk factors for SSIs after cranioplasty among patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing first-time cranioplasty for indications other than infections from January 1, 2008, to July 31, 2014, at an academic health center. Data on demographics, possible risk factors for SSIs, and treatment with VP were collected from the patients' electronic health records. RESULTS During the study period, 258 patients underwent first-time cranioplasties, and 15 (5.8%) of these patients acquired SSIs. Ninety-two patients (35.7%) received intrawound VP (VP group) and 166 (64.3%) did not (no-VP group). Patients in the VP group and the no-VP group were similar with respect to age, sex, smoking history, body mass index, and SSI rates (VP group 6.5%, no-VP group 5.4%, p = 0.72). Patients in the VP group were less likely than those in the no-VP group to have undergone craniectomy for tumors and were more likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score > 2. Intrawound VP was not associated with other postoperative complications. Risk factors for SSI from the bivariable analyses were diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 3.65, 95% CI 1.07-12.44), multiple craniotomy procedures before the cranioplasty (OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.47-13.18), prior same-side craniotomy (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.57-14.24), and prosthetic implants (OR 4.51, 95% CI 1.40-14.59). The multivariable analysis identified prior same-side craniotomy (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.06-10.79) and prosthetic implants (OR 3.93, 95% CI 1.15-13.40) as significant risk factors for SSIs. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with SSIs were more likely than those without SSIs to be readmitted (OR 7.28, 95% CI 2.07-25.60). CONCLUSIONS In this study, intrawound VP was not associated with a decreased risk of SSIs or with an increased risk of complications. Prior same-side craniotomy and prosthetic implants were risk factors for SSI after first-time cranioplasty.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 35 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 8 8%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 44 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,623,465
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery
#1,437
of 8,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,033
of 356,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery
#30
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 356,018 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 72% of its contemporaries.