| Title |
Decompressive craniectomy for severe traumatic brain injury patients with fixed dilated pupils
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s89820 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiang Mao, Guozhuan Miao, Shuyu Hao, Xiaogang Tao, Zonggang Hou, Huan Li, Runfa Tian, Hao Zhang, Te Lu, Jun Ma, Xiaodong Zhang, Hongwei Cheng, Baiyun Liu |
| Abstract |
The outcome of decompressive craniectomy (DC) for severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) patients with fixed dilated pupils (FDPs) is not clear. The objective of this study was to validate the outcome of DC in sTBI patients with FDPs. We retrospectively collected data from 207 sTBI patients with FDPs during the time period of May 4, 2003-October 22, 2013: DC group (n=166) and conservative care (CC) group (n=41). Outcomes that were used as indicators in this study were mortality and favorable outcome. The analysis was based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale recorded at 6 months after trauma. A total of 49.28% patients died (39.76% [DC group] vs 87.80% [CC group]). The mean increased intracranial pressure values after admission before operation were 36.20±7.55 mmHg in the DC group and 35.59±8.18 mmHg in the CC group. After performing DC, the mean ICP value was 14.38±2.60 mmHg. Approximately, 34.34% sTBI patients with FDPs in the DC group gained favorable scores and none of the patients in the CC group gained favorable scores. We found that DC plays a therapeutic role in sTBI patients with FDPs, and it is particularly important to reduce intracranial pressure as soon as possible after trauma. For the patients undergoing DC, favorable outcome and low mortality could be achieved. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Georgia | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 39% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,187,758
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#258
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,903
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 286,873 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.