↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial on effects of different hemostatic sponges in posterior spinal fusion surgeries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
A randomized controlled trial on effects of different hemostatic sponges in posterior spinal fusion surgeries
Published in
BMC Surgery, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12893-016-0197-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derong Xu, Zhinan Ren, Xin Chen, Qianyu Zhuang, Lin Sheng, Shugang Li

Abstract

Spinal fusion surgery is associated with significant blood loss, which may result in potential clinical complications, it is necessary to take safe and effective measures to reduce blood loss in surgery. We perform this study to assess the impact of three different hemostatic materials on perioperative blood loss. We performed a Randomized Controlled Trial research and recruited patients with lumbar disease into the study between November 2013 and March 2015. All the participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups using a simple equal probability randomization scheme: Group A (Stypro hemostatic sponge), Group B (Collagen hemostatic sponge) and Group C (gelatin sponge). We compared postoperative blood loss between these 3 groups. In our study, drainage volume in the first 24 h of patients in Group A and B is significantly smaller, as well as total postoperative volumes of drainage (p < 0.05) during their hospital stay. The drainage volumes in the second 24 h were similar in the 3 groups. We also found that the average drainage Hematocrit (HCT) reduced over time, the average HCT of drainage is 18.04% and 11.72% on the first day and on the second day respectively. Hemostatic collagen sponge demonstrated better hemostasis effects than gelatin sponge with lower volume of postoperative drainage volume and blood loss in posterior spinal fusion surgery. The trial registration number (TRN) of the study is ISRCTN29254316 and date of registration is 25/10/2016. Our trial was registered retrospectively.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 58%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 December 2016.
All research outputs
#14,638,545
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#263
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,779
of 423,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 423,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.