↓ Skip to main content

Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy
Published in
SpringerPlus, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1114-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helene Jung, Palle J S Osther

Abstract

Irrigation and instrumentation during ureterorenoscopic procedures may cause increased pressure in the renal pelvis (PP) with potential harmful adverse effects. In order to assess the pressure increases during ureterorenoscopy, we measured the intraluminal renal pelvic pressure during retrograde intrarenal stone surgery (RIRS). Twelve patients admitted for RIRS were included. Irrigation rate was standardized to 8 ml/min. A ureteral catheter was retrogradely placed in the renal pelvis for PP measurements. PP was measured one time per second during insertion of the Storz Flex-X2 ureteroscope and during stone treatment. Baseline PP was mean 10(±4.0) mmHg. During simple ureterorenoscopy, PP was mean 35(±10) mmHg. During stone management the average PP was 54(±18) mmHg and pelvic pressure peaks up to 328 mmHg occurred. In a 5-min standardized period of simple ureterorenoscopy, 83 pressure peaks >50 mmHg were measured in average per patient (range 2-238). Forced irrigation with a 20 ml syringe resulted in pressure peaks up to 288 mmHg. Very high pelvic pressures are obtained during flexible ureterorenoscopy. Taking into consideration that the threshold for pyelovenous backflow is around 30 mmHg, it is concerning that PPs >300 mmHg are not uncommon during these procedures. Methods to monitor and lower the PP during ureterorenoscopy, therefore, are considered of importance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Other 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 54%
Engineering 3 5%
Unspecified 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2017.
All research outputs
#15,450,375
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#941
of 1,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,473
of 263,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#58
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 263,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.