↓ Skip to main content

Double localization of a non-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm after an axillofemoral bypass: a case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Double localization of a non-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm after an axillofemoral bypass: a case report and review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1149-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Badr Bensaid, Tarek Bakkali, Youssef Tijani, Samir Elkhalloufi, Brahim Lekehal, Yassir Sefiani, Abess El Mesnaoui, Younes Bensaid

Abstract

A traumatic non-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm is a rare complication of an axillofemoral bypass graft. Fewer than 20 cases have been reported in the literature. Our case is unusual in that we report a double localization of this complication. We report the case of a 60-year-old Arabic male patient who was diagnosed with two hematomas in the trajectory of his axillofemoral bypass secondary to a traumatism. The diagnosis of a non-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm was retained considering the results of a computed tomography angiography scan, which showed the double localization of the pseudoaneurysm. Surgical management consisted of flattening the pseudoaneurysm along with the interposition of a prosthetic segment. There were no postoperative complications and our patient was well 3 years after discharge. Non-anastomotic pseudoaneurysm is a rarely described complication of a axillofemoral bypass graft. To the best of our knowledge, a double localization has not been described in the literature before. Minimally invasive techniques as a treatment option are being widely used as an alternative to open repair.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 75%
Engineering 1 25%
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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,510,888
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,271
of 3,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,072
of 421,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#44
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 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 3,935 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 421,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.