↓ Skip to main content

Horner’s syndrome: an unusual complication of thyroidectomy: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Horner’s syndrome: an unusual complication of thyroidectomy: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1072-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjeewa A. Seneviratne, Dewamuni S. Kumara, Akram M. P. Drahaman

Abstract

Horner's syndrome is a very rare complication following surgery of the thyroid gland with only a handful of cases reported in the literature. Exact pathophysiology of post-thyroidectomy Horner's syndrome is not fully understood, and once diagnosed, management remains mostly conservative. A 36-year-old Sri Lankan Sinhalese woman developed unilateral partial ptosis with enophthalmos and myosis one week after total thyroidectomy for a benign multinodular goiter. A clinical diagnosis of Horner's syndrome was made. A postoperative ultrasound scan did not show a collection or hematoma compressing the sympathetic trunk. Our patient was managed conservatively and she had a slow and an incomplete recovery at 1-year follow up. This case report highlights the importance of being aware of the close anatomical relationship between the thyroid gland and cervical sympathetic trunk during thyroidectomy. This would enable the surgeon to undertake measures to minimize the risk of damaging the sympathetic trunk during thyroidectomy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 24%
Other 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 53%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 9 53%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,291,344
of 16,995,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#176
of 2,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,544
of 300,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#20
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,995,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,791 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 300,179 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.