↓ Skip to main content

Applicability and Effectiveness of Closed Reduction of Nasal Fractures under Local Anesthesia

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Applicability and Effectiveness of Closed Reduction of Nasal Fractures under Local Anesthesia
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, March 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1368138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Vilela, Ronaldo Granjeiro, Carlos Maurício, Patrícia Andrade

Abstract

Introduction A significant portion of patients treated in emergency departments have nasal fracture. It is important that the otolaryngologist know how to treat such damage. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of nasal fracture reduction under local anesthesia and tolerance to the procedure. Methods Twenty-four patients treated in the emergency department with closed reduction under local anesthesia were prospectively followed. Epidemiologic information and data regarding pain and complications during the management were noted. The degree of satisfaction was researched by visual analog scale. Results The majority of patients were male (75%), and the most common cause of injury was motor vehicle accident. We found a significant association between time to reduction and referred pain during the procedure. In patients in whom the procedure was delayed (over 3 days), there was less pain, and those who bled during the procedure had a shorter average time to reduction than the group of patients who did not bleed. Most patients were very satisfied, with more than 95% of these willing to undergo the same process again, if necessary. Conclusions The closed approach in the clinic under local anesthesia was effective and safe in restoration of the nose.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
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 11 February 2015.
All research outputs
#20,259,335
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,913
of 221,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 221,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.