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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Automated fastener versus manually tied knots in minimally invasive mitral valve repair: impact on operation time and short- term results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13019-015-0344-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin T. R. Grapow, Miroslawa Mytsyk, Jens Fassl, Patrick Etter, Peter Matt, Friedrich S. Eckstein, Oliver T. Reuthebuch |
| Abstract |
This study compares the influence of two different annuloplasty attachment suture applications, namely the use of an automated fastener versus manually tied knots using a traditional knot pusher, on total operation time, on cardiopulmonary-bypass time and on cross-clamp time, and on short-term outcome. Sixty patients underwent isolated minimally invasive mitral valve repair in Carpentier Type-II mitral disease with implantation of an annuloplasty ring in combination with correction of the prolapsing leaflet using artificial chords. The first 30 patients after implementation of a novel automated fastener were compared with the last 30 patients corrected with a traditional knot pusher. No significant differences with regard to demographic data (age, gender, NYHA class, ejection fraction, BMI, cardiovascular risk factors) between the two groups were found. All patients received isolated mitral valve repair in the first run. Bretschneider HTK was used for cardioplegic cardiac arrest in all patients. Transesophageal and transthoracic echocardiography at the end of operation and at discharge revealed no (n = 25), trace (n = 28) or mild (n = 7) residual regurgitation with no evidence of ring dehiscence and without any significant clinical differences between the groups. Cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary-bypass and total- operation time were significantly reduced in the automated fastener group compared to the group using a traditional knot pusher (87.1 ± 17.9 vs. 101.3 ± 17.8; p < 0.01, 138.1 ± 25.6 vs. 152.7 ± 24.9; p < 0.05, and 203.9 ± 31.02 vs. 223.8 ± 29.01; p < 0.01, respectively). Our short-term results indicate a safe, reliable and fast application of the novel automated fastener device in combination with significant time savings in cardioplegic arrest and cardiopulmonary bypass. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 26% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
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 10 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,468,612
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#148
of 1,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,681
of 285,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 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 1,230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 285,121 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.