↓ Skip to main content

Densities in the left innominate vein after removal of an implantable venous device: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Densities in the left innominate vein after removal of an implantable venous device: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1752-1947-6-180
Pubmed ID
Authors

James van Bastelaar, Caroline H. C. Janssen, Eveline de Bont, Nicole M. Blijlevens, Robertine van Baren

Abstract

Pericatheter calcifications are unusual and rare after removal of indwelling central venous catheters with few reports in the literature. We present a case of a woman with calcifications in her left innominate vein after removal of an implantable venous device. A venous access port was surgically placed for intravenous chemotherapy in a 19-year-old Caucasian woman who had been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. She developed a fever three and a half years after placement, and the venous access port was removed as it was seen as the only focus for her fever. In the year following its removal, a computed tomography scan was ordered due to a clinical suspicion of deep venous thrombosis of her left arm. The computed tomography scan revealed a hyperdense structure in the left innominate vein with thrombosis. It was concluded that this was a foreign body, a retained catheter fragment after removal of the catheter. After three-dimensional reconstructions were performed, it was determined that these hyperdense structures were calcifications in the left innominate vein that resembled a foreign body. Differentiating between intravenous thrombotic calcification and a retained catheter tip after removal can be challenging, even with modern day diagnostic tools. Care should be taken to document the length of the catheter upon placement and upon removal. In this manner, unnecessary surgical exploration can be avoided. We would like to highlight the importance of these diagnostic considerations for radiologists and oncologists.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Unknown 9 75%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 25%
Unknown 9 75%
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 03 July 2012.
All research outputs
#18,309,495
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,233
of 3,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,426
of 164,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#37
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 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 3,880 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 164,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.