↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Other 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 79%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 4 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#2,342,245
of 9,719,571 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#39
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,238
of 313,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,719,571 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 313,964 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 69% 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