↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for Spontaneous Intracranial Dissecting Aneurysms in Childhood: A Retrospective Study of 26 Cases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Treatment for Spontaneous Intracranial Dissecting Aneurysms in Childhood: A Retrospective Study of 26 Cases
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00224
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi-Sen Zhang, Shuo Wang, Yang Wang, Zhong-Bin Tian, Jian Liu, Kun Wang, Jun-Fan Chen, Xin-Jian Yang

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the clinicoradiological features and treatment outcomes of intracranial dissecting aneurysms (IDAs) in childhood. We conducted a retrospective study of pediatric patients who were treated for spontaneous IDAs in our institute between January 2010 and December 2015. The clinical presentation, aneurysm characteristics, treatment modality, and outcome were studied. We studied 26 pediatric patients (mean age, 13.4 years; range, 4-18 years) with 31 IDAs who comprised 6.9% of all IDA patients treated during the same period. Seventeen (65.4%) patients were males, and nine (34.6%) were females. The incidence of large (≥10 mm in size) or giant aneurysms (≥25 mm in size) was 65.5%. Twenty-one (80.8%) patients underwent endovascular or surgical treatment and five (19.2%) received conservative treatment. Perioperative complications occurred in three patients, in whom two eventually recovered completely with a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of 5 and one partially recovered with a GOS score 4. Overall, 25 (96.2%) patients had a favorable outcome and one (3.8%) had an unfavorable outcome at a mean follow-up of 22.8 months (range, 6-60 months). Pediatric IDAs are rare. In this series, endovascular management was a relatively safe and effective method of treatment for pediatric IDAs. However, continued follow-up is required because of the possibility of aneurysm recurrence and de novo aneurysm formation after treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 23%
Other 5 19%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 38%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 10 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,359,475
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,845
of 11,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#353,647
of 419,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#46
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 419,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.