↓ Skip to main content

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003635.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaukat Nawaz Khan, Gerard Stansby

Abstract

During aortic aneurysm surgery, cross-clamping can lead to inadequate blood supply to the spinal cord resulting in neurological deficit. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) may increase the perfusion pressure to the spinal cord and hence reduce the risk of ischaemic spinal cord injury. To determine the effect of CSFD during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) surgery on the risk of developing spinal cord injury. For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 31 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 5) for publications describing randomised controlled trials of cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked. Randomised trials involving CSFD during thoracic and TAAA surgery. Both authors assessed the quality of trials independently. SNK extracted data and GS verified the data. Three trials with a total of 287 participants operated on for Type I or II TAAA were included.In the first trial of 98 participants, neurological deficits in the lower extremities occurred in 14 (30%) of CSFD group and 17 (33%) controls. The deficit was observed within 24 hours of the operation in 21 (68%), and from three to 22 days in 10 (32%) participants. CSFD did not have a significant benefit in preventing ischaemic injury to the spinal cord.The second trial of 33 participants used a combination of CSFD and intrathecal papaverine. It showed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of postoperative neurological deficit (P = 0.039), compared to controls. Analysis was undertaken after only one third of the estimated sample size had entered the trial.In the third trial TAAA repair was performed on 145 participants. CSFD was initiated during the operation and continued for 48 hours after surgery. Paraplegia or paraparesis occurred in 9 of 74 participants (12.2%) in the control group versus 2 of 82 participants (2.7%) receiving CSFD (P = 0.03). Overall, CSFD resulted in an 80% reduction in the relative risk of postoperative deficits. Meta-analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.48 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.92). For CSFD-only trials, OR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.17) and for intention-to-treat analysis in CSFD-only studies, the OR remained unchanged. There are limited data supporting the role of CSFD in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm surgery for prevention of neurological injury. Further clinical and experimental studies are indicated.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
India 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Other 9 11%
Other 20 25%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 14 18%

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 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,639,780
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,087
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,365
of 367,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 367,096 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.