↓ Skip to main content

Goal-directed fluid therapy using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis and balanced crystalloid solutions during hip revision arthroplasty: a quality implementation project

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Goal-directed fluid therapy using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis and balanced crystalloid solutions during hip revision arthroplasty: a quality implementation project
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13018-023-03738-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. F. Trauzeddel, M. Leitner, L. Dehé, M. Nordine, S. K. Piper, M. Habicher, M. Sander, C. Perka, S. Treskatsch

Abstract

To implement a goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) protocol using crystalloids in hip revision arthroplasty surgery within a quality management project at a tertiary hospital using a monocentric, prospective observational study. Adult patients scheduled for elective hip revision arthroplasty surgery were screened for inclusion in this prospective study. Intraoperatively stroke volume (SV) was optimized within a previously published protocol using uncalibrated pulse contour analysis and balanced crystalloids. Quality of perioperative GDFT was assessed by protocol adherence, SV increase as well as the rate of perioperative complications. Findings were then compared to two different historical groups of a former trial: one receiving GDFT with colloids (prospective colloid group) and one standard fluid therapy (retrospective control group) throughout surgery. Statistical analysis constitutes exploratory data analyses and results are expressed as median with 25th and 75th percentiles, absolute and relative frequencies, and complication rates are further given with 95% confidence intervals for proportions using the normal approximation without continuity correction. Sixty-six patients underwent GDFT using balanced crystalloids and were compared to 130 patients with GDFT using balanced colloids and 130 controls without GDFT fluid resuscitation. There was a comparable increase in SV (crystalloids: 65 (54-74 ml; colloids: 67.5 (60-75.25 ml) and total volume infused (crystalloids: 2575 (2000-4210) ml; colloids: 2435 (1760-3480) ml; and controls: 2210 (1658-3000) ml). Overall perioperative complications rates were similar (42.4% (95%CI 30.3-55.2%) for crystalloids and 49.2% (95%CI 40.4-58.1%) for colloids and lower compared to controls: 66.9% (95%CI 58.1-74.9)). Interestingly, a reduced number of hemorrhagic complications was observed within crystalloids: 30% (95%CI 19.6-42.9); colloids: 43% (95%CI 34.4-52.0); and controls: 62% (95%CI 52.6-69.9). There were no differences in the rate of admission to the post-anesthesia care unit or intensive care unit as well as the length of stay. Perioperative fluid management using a GDFT protocol with crystalloids in hip revision arthroplasty surgery was successfully implemented in daily clinical routine. Perioperative complications rates were reduced compared to a previous management without GDFT and comparable when using colloids. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01753050.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 17%
Student > Master 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 17%
Neuroscience 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 April 2023.
All research outputs
#13,353,841
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#403
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,691
of 252,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#8
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 252,603 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.