↓ Skip to main content

Bilateral Cavernous Carotid Aneurysms: Atypical Presentation of a Rare Cause of Mass Effect. A Case Report and a Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Bilateral Cavernous Carotid Aneurysms: Atypical Presentation of a Rare Cause of Mass Effect. A Case Report and a Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00619
Pubmed ID
Authors

Delia Gagliardi, Irene Faravelli, Luisa Villa, Guglielmo Pero, Claudia Cinnante, Roberta Brusa, Eleonora Mauri, Laura Tresoldi, Francesca Magri, Alessandra Govoni, Nereo Bresolin, Giacomo P. Comi, Stefania Corti

Abstract

Bilateral cavernous carotid aneurysms (CCAs) represent a rare medical condition that can mimic other disorders. We present a rare case of bilateral CCAs simulating an ocular myasthenia. A 76-year-old woman presented with a history of fluctuating bilateral diplopia and unilateral ptosis, which led to the suspicion of ocular myasthenia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the brain showed the presence of large bilateral aneurysms of the carotid cavernous tract. After an unsuccessful attempt with steroid therapy, the patient underwent endovascular treatment, with mild improvement. Bilateral CCAs can cause pupil sparing third nerve palsies and other cranial neuropathies which can mimic signs and symptoms of disorders of the neuromuscular junction. Therefore, the possibility of a vascular lesion simulating ocular myasthenia should be considered especially in older patients.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Neuroscience 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,529,173
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#9,028
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,972
of 331,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#241
of 315 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 331,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 315 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.