↓ Skip to main content

Modified Tessari Tourbillon technique for making foam sclerotherapy with silicone-free syringes

Overview of attention for article published in Phlebology, October 2014
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Modified Tessari Tourbillon technique for making foam sclerotherapy with silicone-free syringes
Published in
Phlebology, October 2014
DOI 10.1177/0268355514554476
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The longevity of foam made using sodium tetradecyl sulphate and gas (air or a CO2:O2 mixture) is increased significantly if silicone-free syringes are used over the normal syringes containing silicone oil lubrication. However, the plungers in silicone-free syringes start sticking after several passages when making foam for sclerotherapy, preventing the smooth injection of the resulting foam. We describe a three syringe technique which allows foam to be made using the Tessari Tourbillon 'three-way stopcock' principle between two syringes, but with the foam ending up in a third syringe which has not undergone multiple passages of the plunger. This allows a smoother injection of the resultant foam, which is particularly useful when injecting small diameter veins under ultrasound control.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 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 %
Ecuador 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 58%
Engineering 2 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Materials Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 September 2026.
All research outputs
#3,805,919
of 34,528,520 outputs
Outputs from Phlebology
#77
of 983 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,864
of 300,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phlebology
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,528,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 983 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 300,504 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.