↓ Skip to main content

Rare complication after thyroidectomy-cervical esophageal stenosis: a case report and literature review

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Rare complication after thyroidectomy-cervical esophageal stenosis: a case report and literature review
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-12-308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanwei Peng, Steven J Wang, Weixiong Li

Abstract

The most common complications after thyroidectomy are injuries associated with the recurrent laryngeal nerve and parathyroid gland. Cervical esophagus perforation is an exceptionally rare complication after thyroidectomy; it can usually be resolved by conservative care. Cervical esophageal stenosis secondary to intraoperative esophageal injury during thyroidectomy is much rarer and has not been reported in the literature to date. We report a case of esophageal stenosis following thyroidectomy performed at a peripheral hospital. The patient initially underwent a thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma involving the cervical esophagus; esophageal perforation was noted intraoperatively, and closed using three number 4 silk sutures. Cervical esophageal stenosis subsequently developed after conservative care. The patient was successfully treated with cervical esophagectomy and reconstruction using a tubed forearm free flap after a failed attempt at endoscopic recanalization. This case is discussed in conjunction with a review of the literature.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
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 17 October 2014.
All research outputs
#17,728,987
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#871
of 2,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,441
of 256,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#44
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,042 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 256,089 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 78 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.