↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes following operative vs. non-operative management of blunt traumatic pancreatic injuries: a retrospective multi-institutional study

Overview of attention for article published in Burns & Trauma, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Outcomes following operative vs. non-operative management of blunt traumatic pancreatic injuries: a retrospective multi-institutional study
Published in
Burns & Trauma, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41038-016-0065-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Poppy Addison, Toni Iurcotta, Leo I. Amodu, Geoffrey Crandall, Meredith Akerman, Daniel Galvin, Annemarie Glazer, Nathan Christopherson, Jose Prince, Matthew Bank, Christopher Sorrentino, Joaquin Cagliani, Jeffrey Nicastro, Gene Coppa, Ernesto P. Molmenti, Horacio L. Rodriguez Rilo

Abstract

Traumatic pancreatic injuries are rare, and guidelines specifying management are controversial and difficult to apply in the acute clinical setting. Due to sparse data on these injuries, we carried out a retrospective review to determine outcomes following surgical or non-surgical management of traumatic pancreatic injuries. We hypothesize a higher morbidity and mortality rate in patients treated surgically when compared to patients treated non-surgically. We performed a retrospective review of data from four trauma centers in New York from 1990-2014, comparing patients who had blunt traumatic pancreatic injuries who were managed operatively to those managed non-operatively. We compared continuous variables using the Mann-Whitney U test and categorical variables using the chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the possible confounding factors associated with mortality in both treatment groups. Twenty nine patients were managed operatively and 32 non-operatively. There was a significant difference between the operative and non-operative groups in median age (37.0 vs. 16.2 years, P = 0.016), grade of pancreatic injury (grade I; 30.8 vs. 85.2%, P value for all comparisons <0.0001), median injury severity score (ISS) (16.0 vs. 4.0, P = 0.002), blood transfusion (55.2 vs. 15.6%, P = 0.0012), other abdominal injuries (79.3 vs. 38.7%, P = 0.0014), pelvic fractures (17.2 vs. 0.00%, P = 0.020), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (86.2 vs. 50.0%, P = 0.003), median length of stay (LOS) (16.0 vs. 4.0 days, P <0.0001), and mortality (27.6 vs. 3.1%, P = 0.010). Patients with traumatic pancreatic injuries treated operatively were more severely injured and suffered greater complications than those treated non-operatively. The greater morbidity and mortality associated with these patients warrants further study to determine optimal triage strategies and which subset of patients is likely to benefit from surgery.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 21%
Student > Master 5 18%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Engineering 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 13 46%
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 21 December 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Burns & Trauma
#197
of 304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,311
of 420,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Burns & Trauma
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 420,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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.