↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Flow Diverting Stents to Treat Para-Ophthalmic Aneurysms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
The Use of Flow Diverting Stents to Treat Para-Ophthalmic Aneurysms
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00381
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pervinder Bhogal, Victoria Hellstern, Hansjörg Bäzner, Oliver Ganslandt, Hans Henkes, Marta Aguilar Pérez

Abstract

Few publications have dealt exclusively with the use of flow diverter stents for the treatment of para-ophthalmic aneurysms. We sought to determine the efficacy of flow diverting stents (FDSs) to treat aneurysms in this specific location. We retrospectively reviewed our database of prospectively collected information for all patients treated with flow diversion for an unruptured saccular para-ophthalmic aneurysm between September 2009 and January 2016. The aneurysm fundus size, neck size, number and type of FDS, complications, and follow-up data were recorded. We identified 74 patients that matched our inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 18 patients were male (24.3%). The average fundus size was 4.8 mm, 11 aneurysms had previous coil occlusions and 63 were treated solely with flow diversion. At an initial angiographic follow-up (mean avg. 3.2 months), 71.8% of the aneurysms were occluded, and at the last follow-up (mean avg. 31.8 months), 88.9% of aneurysms were occluded. One patient suffered permanent morbidity (1.36%) secondary to interruption of the antiplatelet medication and another died (1.36%) secondary to in-stent thrombosis that was also due to an interruption in the antiplatelet medication. Treatment of saccular para-ophthalmic aneurysms with FDS is feasible and carries a high degree of technical success with low complication rates and excellent rates of aneurysm exclusion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Neuroscience 3 14%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Design 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,566,650
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,835
of 11,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,312
of 317,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#138
of 198 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 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 11,889 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 317,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 198 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.