↓ Skip to main content

Extrapulmonary sequestration with a left internal thoracic arterial feeding vessel in an infant treated with video-assisted thoracoscopic resection: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Extrapulmonary sequestration with a left internal thoracic arterial feeding vessel in an infant treated with video-assisted thoracoscopic resection: a case report
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13019-018-0775-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura DiChiacchio, Clint D. Cappiello, Jose Greenspon

Abstract

Congenital lung malformations exist along a spectrum of pathogenesis and disease severity. Extrapulmonary sequestration (EPS), in which nonfunctional lung tissue develops without connection to the tracheobronchial tree, is one rare manifestation of this disease. Atypical vascular anatomy with a systemic feeding vessel characterizes these lesions. A 3 day old, 37 week gestation infant underwent chest X-ray for confirmation of umbilical catheter placement and was found to have an elevated left hemidiaphragm consistent with eventration versus congenital diaphragmatic hernia. He remained asymptomatic and was evaluated as an outpatient at the age of 9 months, where CT angiogram demonstrated extrapulmonary versus intrapulmonary sequestration with a systemic feeding vessel from the left internal mammary artery. It is exceedingly rare for the feeding artery to arise from the internal mammary; two such cases have been reported to date, both in adult patients. Here we present a third case of EPS with arterial supply from the internal mammary successfully treated with video-assisted thoracoscopic resection in a 9 month old infant.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 29%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Environmental Science 1 14%
Unknown 3 43%
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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,643,992
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#649
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,133
of 328,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#23
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 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 1,252 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 328,924 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.