↓ Skip to main content

Wrong-Site Surgery: Can We Prevent It?

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Surgery, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 194)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
guideline
2 clinical guideline sources

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Wrong-Site Surgery: Can We Prevent It?
Published in
Advances in Surgery, September 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.yasu.2008.03.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Wrong-site surgery happens frequently enough that it is a significant risk for many surgeons during their professional careers. But it is an event that should never happen. Most wrong-site surgery is wrong-side surgery, followed by wrong-digit and wrong-vertebral-level surgery. Wrong-site surgery results from misinformation or misperception of the patient's orientation. The key to preventing wrong-site surgery is to have multiple independent checks of critical information. Discrepancies among the operative record, consent, and the surgeon's record of the history and physical examination should ideally be resolved prior to the day of surgery to avoid time-consuming reconciliations. We noted that the preoperative verification was the most effective of the three steps of the Universal Protocol and that the patient was a more reliable source of accurate information than the documents. Marking the operative site gives patients a voice after they are sedated or anesthesia is induced. Wrong-site surgery has involved local or regional anesthesia at the wrong site when anesthesiologists did not adhere to formal time-outs for their procedures. Surgeons need to have access to all relevant information and to be engaged in the processes to prevent wrong-site surgery, particularly in the final time-out. Junior members of the operating room team must be made comfortable about speaking up if concerned. During spinal surgery, the vertebral level needs to be confirmed radiographically. Wrong-site surgical problems can occur after an operation if accurate information is not provided to accompany the specimen or if leftover labels from a previous patient are used to identify the specimen.

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 51 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 %
United States 2 4%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 21 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,517,124
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Surgery
#11
of 194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,453
of 135,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Surgery
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 135,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them