↓ Skip to main content

Three-dimensional printing as an aid to airway evaluation after tracheotomy in a patient with laryngeal carcinoma

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Three-dimensional printing as an aid to airway evaluation after tracheotomy in a patient with laryngeal carcinoma
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0170-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Han, Yajie Liu, Xiaoqing Zhang, Jun Wang

Abstract

Difficult airway may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Proficient airway evaluation, therefore, is one of the key elements in the safe conduct of anesthesia. A three-dimensional (3D) printing model was recently introduced for medical application. 3D printing is a fast, convenient, and relatively affordable technique. We present a case in which a 3D-printed airway model was successfully used for airway evaluation. A 77-year-old man who had previously undergone total laryngectomy was scheduled for resection of a pelvic mass. The condition of his airway, however, complicated the procedure. Routine methods to evaluate his airway were not suitable. Therefore, the patient's computed tomography imaging data were used to generate stereolithography files and then to print out 3D models of his trachea. These 3D models enhanced our understanding of his tracheal morphology. They helped us devise a preanesthesia plan and effectively execute it without complications. 3D printing models allow better understanding of morphological changes in the airway and aid preanesthesia planning. The successful outcome of our case suggests 3D printing is a potent tool for evaluating difficult and more widespread use is encouraged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 48%
Engineering 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Linguistics 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,644,186
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#183
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,010
of 394,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 394,468 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.