↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A comparative cohort study of totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced atherosclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
A comparative cohort study of totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced atherosclerosis
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2015
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s92671
Pubmed ID
Authors

Syed Kazmi, Michael Abelnoor, Anne Helene Krog, Dagfinn Kølleros, Jon Otto Sundhagen, Tor Leif Flørenes, Jørgen Junkichi Jørgensen

Abstract

Totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABF) procedure has been shown to be feasible for the treatment of advanced aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). This study compares the LABF with the open aortobifemoral bypass (OABF) operation. In this prospective comparative cohort study, 50 consecutive patients with type D atherosclerotic lesions in the aortoiliac segment were treated with an LABF operation. The group was compared with 30 patients who were operated on with the OABF procedure for the same disease and time period. We had an explanatory strategy, and our research hypothesis was to compare the two surgical procedures based on a composite event (all-cause mortality, graft occlusion, and systemic morbidity). Stratification analysis was performed by using the Mantel-Haenszel method with the patient-time model. Cox multivariate regression method was used to adjust for confounding effect after considering the proportional hazard assumption. Cox proportional cause-specific hazard regression model was used for competing risk endpoint. There was a higher frequency of comorbidity in the OABF group. A significant reduction of composite event, 82% (hazard ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.08-0.42, P=0.0001) was found in the LABF group when compared with OABF group, during a median follow-up time period of 4.12 years (range from 1 day to 9.32 years). In addition, less operative bleeding and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the LABF group when compared with the OABF group. All components of the composite event showed the same positive effect in favor of LABF procedure. LABF for the treatment of AIOD, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II type D lesions, seems to result in a less composite event when compared with the OABF procedure. To conclude, our results need to be replicated by a randomized clinical trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%

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 26 October 2015.
All research outputs
#17,774,112
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#608
of 757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,885
of 353,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#37
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 353,128 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.