↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative fluid retention increases blood loss during major open abdominal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Preoperative fluid retention increases blood loss during major open abdominal surgery
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13741-017-0068-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert G. Hahn, Hans Bahlmann, Lena Nilsson

Abstract

Quantification of renal fluid conservation is possible by urine analysis, and the results can indicate dehydration. The present report sought to determine whether this fluid retention correlates with fluid requirements during major abdominal surgeries that have estimated operating times ≥ 2 h. Urine colour, specific weight, osmolality and creatinine concentration were used to calculate a composite "fluid retention index" (FRI) in 97 patients prior to major abdominal surgery. Goal-directed fluid volume optimization, with hydroxyethyl starch supplemented with a background administration of crystalloid fluid, was used. The median preoperative FRI was 3.0. Fluid retention, considered as present when FRI ≥ 3.5, was found in 37% of the patients. Fluid retention was followed by a significantly larger blood loss (+ 125%; 450 vs. 200 ml), higher haemorrhage rate (+ 41%; 123 vs. 87 ml/h) and greater need for both colloid (+ 43%; 1.43 vs. 1.00 l) and crystalloid (+ 18%; 1.28 vs. 1.08 l) fluids. Despite the larger blood loss, the total fluid balance was more positive after surgery in the dehydrated patients (+ 26%; 1.91 vs. 1.51 l; P < 0.02). Preoperative fluid retention, as detected in a urine sample, was associated with a greater blood loss and a more positive fluid balance during major abdominal surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01458678.

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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 33%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 33%
Unspecified 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 33%
Neuroscience 1 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,044,941
of 13,020,564 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#64
of 117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,506
of 266,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,020,564 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 266,013 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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