↓ Skip to main content

Implementation of goal-directed fluid therapy during hip revision arthroplasty: a matched cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 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
Implementation of goal-directed fluid therapy during hip revision arthroplasty: a matched cohort study
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13741-016-0056-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marit Habicher, Felix Balzer, Viktor Mezger, Jennifer Niclas, Michael Müller, Carsten Perka, Michael Krämer, Michael Sander

Abstract

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) can decrease postsurgical complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. However, very few studies have demonstrated the value of goal-directed therapy (GDT) in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery and confirmed it is as useful in real-life conditions. Therefore, we initiated a GDFT implementation programme in patients undergoing hip revision arthroplasty in order to assess its effects on postoperative complications (e.g. infection, cardiac, neurological, renal) (primary outcome) and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (secondary outcomes). We developed a GDFT protocol for the haemodynamic management of patients undergoing hip revision arthroplasty. The GDFT protocol was based on continuous monitoring and optimization of stroke volume during the surgical procedure. From December 2012 and for a period of 17 months, 130 patients were treated according to the GDFT protocol (GDFT group). The pre-, intra-, and postoperative characteristics of patients from the GDFT group were compared to those of 130 historical matched patients (control group) who had the same surgery between January 2011 and August 2012. Patients from the GDFT and from the control group were comparable in terms of age, comorbidities, and P-POSSUM score. Duration of anaesthesia and surgery were also comparable. The GDFT group had a significantly lower morbidity rate (49.2 vs. 66.9%; p = 0.006) and a shorter median hospital length of stay (11 days (9-15) vs. 9 days (8-12); p = 0.003) than the control group. Patients from the control group post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU)/ICU stayed significantly longer at PACU/ICU than patients from the GDFT group (control group vs. GDFT group, 960 min (360-1210) vs. 400 min (207-825); p < 0.001) Patients from the GDFT group received less crystalloids but more colloids during surgery. They also received more often inotropic therapy. In patients undergoing hip revision arthroplasty, the implementation of GDT as a new standard operating procedure was successful and associated with reduced postsurgical complications, most importantly a reduction in postoperative bleeding as well as hospital and ICU stay. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01753050.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 24%
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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,146,525
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#113
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,928
of 420,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 420,167 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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