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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Posterior Tracheopexy for Severe Tracheomalacia Associated with Esophageal Atresia (EA): Primary Treatment at the Time of Initial EA Repair versus Secondary Treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Surgery, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00080 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hester F. Shieh, C. Jason Smithers, Thomas E. Hamilton, David Zurakowski, Gary A. Visner, Michael A. Manfredi, Christopher W. Baird, Russell W. Jennings |
| Abstract |
We review outcomes of posterior tracheopexy for tracheomalacia in esophageal atresia (EA) patients, comparing primary treatment at the time of initial EA repair versus secondary treatment. All EA patients who underwent posterior tracheopexy from October 2012 to September 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical symptoms, tracheomalacia scores, and persistent airway intrusion were collected. Indication for posterior tracheopexy was the presence of clinical symptoms, in combination with severe tracheomalacia as identified on bronchoscopic evaluation, typically defined as coaptation in one or more regions of the trachea. Secondary cases were usually those with chronic respiratory symptoms who underwent bronchoscopic evaluation, whereas primary cases were those found to have severe tracheomalacia on routine preoperative dynamic tracheobronchoscopy at the time of initial EA repair. A total of 118 patients underwent posterior tracheopexy: 18 (15%) primary versus 100 (85%) secondary cases. Median (interquartile range) age was 2 months (1-4 months) for primary (22% type C) and 18 months (8-40 months) for secondary (87% type C) cases (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant improvements in most clinical symptoms postoperatively for primary and secondary cases, with no significant differences in any postoperative symptoms between the two groups (p > 0.1). Total tracheomalacia scores improved significantly in primary (p = 0.013) and secondary (p < 0.001) cases. Multivariable Cox regression analysis indicated no differences in persistent airway intrusion requiring reoperation between primary and secondary tracheopexy adjusting for imbalances in age and EA type (p = 0.67). Posterior tracheopexy is effective in treating severe tracheomalacia with significant improvements in clinical symptoms and degree of airway collapse on bronchoscopy. With no significant differences in outcomes between primary and secondary treatment, posterior tracheopexy should be selectively considered at the time of initial EA repair. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 27% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 42% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 33% |
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 15 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,583,054
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#951
of 2,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#354,569
of 473,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#17
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 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 2,986 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 473,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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.