↓ Skip to main content

Shunt scissors: technical note.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurosurgery, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Shunt scissors: technical note.
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery, December 2017
DOI 10.3171/2017.6.jns171108
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

OBJECTIVE When performing ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery it is necessary to create a subgaleal pocket that is of sufficient size to accommodate a shunt valve. In most cases the valve is placed over the posterior skull where the galea begins to transition to suboccipital neck fascia. Dense fibrous attachments in this region of the skull make it technically awkward to develop the subgaleal valve pocket using standard scissors and a blunt dissection technique. In this report the authors describe a new device that enables surgeons to create the shunt valve pocket by using a simple semi-sharp dissection technique. METHODS The authors analyzed the deficiencies of the standard valve pocket dissection technique and designed shunt scissors that address the identified shortcomings. These new scissors allow the surgeon to sharply dissect the subgaleal space by using an efficient hand-closing maneuver. RESULTS Standard surgical scissors were modified to create shunt scissors that were tested on the benchtop and used in the operating room. In all cases the shunt scissors proved easy to use and allowed the efficient and reliable creation of a subgaleal valve pocket in a technically pleasing manner. CONCLUSIONS Shunt scissors represent an incremental technical advance in the field of neurosurgical shunt operations.

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 6 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 12 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 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 2 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#21,415,391
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery
#6,871
of 8,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,426
of 492,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery
#75
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 492,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.