↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The fissure: interlobar collateral ventilation and implications for endoscopic therapy in emphysema

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
The fissure: interlobar collateral ventilation and implications for endoscopic therapy in emphysema
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s103807
Pubmed ID
Authors

Theodoor David Koster, Dirk-Jan Slebos

Abstract

In patients with severe emphysema, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using one-way valves is a promising therapeutic option to improve lung function and quality of life. The goal of this treatment is to achieve a complete lobar atelectasis. In a significant proportion of patients, this atelectasis cannot be achieved due to interlobar collateral ventilation. This collateral ventilation is generated through incomplete lobar fissures. Therefore, only patients with complete fissures and no collateral ventilation can be selected for endobronchial therapy with one-way valves. Incomplete fissures are very common and exhibit a great variation in anatomy. The reported prevalence is 17%-85% for the right major fissure, 19%-74% for the left major fissure, and 20%-90% for the minor fissure. There are several methods of measuring or predicting the presence of collateral ventilation, with computed tomography (CT)-fissure analysis and the Chartis measurement being the most important. CT-fissure analysis is an indirect method to measure the completeness of fissures as a surrogate for collateral ventilation. The Chartis system is an endobronchial method to directly measure the presence of collateral ventilation. Both methods have unique value, and the combination of both can accurately predict the treatment response to the bronchoscopic placement of endobronchial valves. This review provides an in-depth view of lung fissure and collateral ventilation to help understand its importance in selecting the appropriate patients for new emphysema treatments and thus avoid useless treatment in unsuitable patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 16%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Engineering 3 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,571,725
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#732
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,647
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#24
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.