↓ Skip to main content

Lumbar puncture as possible cause of sudden paradoxical herniation in patient with previous decompressive craniectomy: report of two cases

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Lumbar puncture as possible cause of sudden paradoxical herniation in patient with previous decompressive craniectomy: report of two cases
Published in
BMC Neurology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12883-017-0931-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang Shen, Sheng Qiu, Zhongzhou Su, Xudong Ma, Renfu Yan

Abstract

Lumbar puncture is often used for the diagnosis and treatment of subarchnoid hemorrhage, infection of Cerebro-spinal Fluid (CSF), hydrocephalus in neurosurgery department patients. It is general that paradoxical herniation followed by lumbar puncture is quite rare in decompressive craniectomy cases; the related reports are very few. Moreover, most of the paradoxical herniation cases are chronic, which often occur weeks or even months after the lumbar puncture, to date, barely no reports on the acute onset paradoxical herniation have been found. Two traumatic brain injury patients with decompressive craniectomy (DC) and hydrocephalus suffered from a sudden paradoxical herniation after lumbar puncture. The symptoms of herniation were improved by treated with Trendelenburg position and rapid intravenous infusion. Lumbar puncture may have a potential risk of inducing sudden paradoxical herniation in patients with DC. CSF drainage during lumbar puncture should be in small volume for patients with DC. Once a paradoxical herniation occurs after lumbar puncture, an immediate Trendelenburg position and rapid intravenous infusion treatment may be effective.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Other 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
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 07 August 2017.
All research outputs
#18,566,650
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,906
of 2,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,218
of 317,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#31
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 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 2,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 317,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.