↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for treatment of acute femoropopliteal bypass occlusion

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for treatment of acute femoropopliteal bypass occlusion
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, June 2012
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s30819
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Lichtenberg, Hailer, Kaeunicke

Abstract

Acute and subacute ischemia of the legs in acute and subacute femoropopliteal bypass occlusion is a dramatic situation that endangers the survival of the limbs, depending on the severity of the ischemia. Different therapy options like percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy procedures, which include rotational thrombectomy, have become available in recent years, in addition to local lysis and surgical thrombectomy. Surgical thrombectomy using the Fogarty catheter technique, in particular, shows an increased incidence of perioperative complications but only small technical success rates in randomized trials. On the other hand, local lysis is associated with increased costs due to resource-consuming measures, such as intensive monitoring and repeat angiographies, in addition to bleeding complications. In the past, further development of the Straub Rotarex(®) system as an endovascular therapy option has demonstrated good success leading to amputation-free survival in multiple studies. At the same time, a low rate of complications with use has been documented. Most examinations have been conducted in the thigh. To date, there are little investigational data on its use in acutely and subacutely occluded femoropopliteal bypasses. In this paper, the current study-based significance of the Rotarex system for this indication is analyzed based on the existing literature and the authors' own experiences with 22 patients.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Master 3 19%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 63%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 5 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 04 May 2012.
All research outputs
#3,533,587
of 4,506,935 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#265
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,530
of 75,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,506,935 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 75,175 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 16 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.