↓ Skip to main content

Management of Bleeding in Exclusive Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Pilot Clinical Experience

Overview of attention for article published in Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Management of Bleeding in Exclusive Endoscopic Ear Surgery: Pilot Clinical Experience
Published in
Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/0194599817726982
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lukas Anschuetz, Marco Bonali, Pierre Guarino, Filippo B. Fabbri, Matteo Alicandri-Ciufelli, Domenico Villari, Marco Caversaccio, Livio Presutti

Abstract

Objective Transcanal exclusive endoscopic ear surgery requires the management of the endoscope and the surgical instruments in the external auditory canal. Bleeding in this narrow space is one of the most challenging issues, especially for novice endoscopic ear surgeons. We aim to assess the severity and occurrence of bleeding and describe strategies to control the bleeding during endoscopic ear surgery. We hypothesize that bleeding is reasonably controllable in endoscopic ear surgery. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting Tertiary referral center. Subjects and Methods We retrospectively assessed 104 consecutive cases of exclusive endoscopic ear surgery at the University Hospital of Modena, Italy. The surgical videos and the patient charts were carefully investigated and analyzed. Results Hemostatic agents included injection of diluted epinephrine (1:200,000, 2% mepivacaine), cottonoids soaked with epinephrine (1:1000), mono- or bipolar cautery, washing with hydrogen peroxide, and self-suctioning instruments. The localization of bleeding in the external auditory canal was most frequently the posterior superior part, and inside of the middle ear, it was the pathology itself. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences comparing the mean arterial pressure and the type of intervention among bleeding scores. Conclusion The management of bleeding in endoscopic ear surgery is feasible through widely available hemostatic agents in reasonable frequency. This study gives an instructive overview on how to manage the bleeding in the exclusive endoscopic technique. Even the highest bleeding scores could be managed in an exclusively endoscopic technique.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 5 18%
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 3 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%

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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#9,395,285
of 11,753,826 outputs
Outputs from Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
#2,042
of 2,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,999
of 264,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery
#34
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,753,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,604 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 264,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.