↓ Skip to main content

A prospective evaluation on external jugular vein cut-down approach for TIVAD implantation

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 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
A prospective evaluation on external jugular vein cut-down approach for TIVAD implantation
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12957-015-0663-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giuseppe Cavallaro, Olga Iorio, Angelo Iossa, Francesco De Angelis, Marcello Avallone, Matteo Massaro, Consalvo Mattia, Gianfranco Silecchia

Abstract

Totally implantable venous access devices can be implanted both by percutaneous approaches and by surgical approaches with cephalic vein or external jugular vein cut-down techniques that are related to low intraoperative complication rates. The authors report a prospective evaluation of 83 consecutive external jugular vein cut-down approaches for totally implantable venous access devices implantation. Eighty three consecutive patients (28 M, 55 F, mean age 54.2) suffering from solid tumors (58) or hematologic diseases (25) were consecutively submitted to totally implantable venous access devices insertion through external jugular vein cut-down approach (75 on right side, 8 on left side). All devices were surgically implanted; no instances of intraoperative complications were detected. After a minimum follow-up of 150 days, only one case of wound hematoma and one case of device malfunction due to incorrect catheter angulation were noted. Postoperative patient satisfaction was evaluated by the use of specific questionnaire that demonstrated a good satisfaction and compliance (92.8 %) of patients with implanted devices. Despite the lack of controlled studies comparing external jugular vein cut-down approach vs other approaches, this approach should be considered as a tool for long-term central vein catheters positioning, both as an alternative and for primary approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Other 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%

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 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,854,238
of 5,476,876 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#563
of 1,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,266
of 191,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#34
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,476,876 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,151 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 191,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.