| Title |
Increased identification of parathyroid glands using near infrared light during thyroid and parathyroid surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5424-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jorge Falco, Fernando Dip, Pablo Quadri, Martin de la Fuente, Marcos Prunello, Raúl J. Rosenthal |
| Abstract |
Parathyroid gland (PG) identification during thyroid and parathyroid surgery is challenging. Accidental parathyroidectomy increases the rate of postoperative hypocalcaemia. Recently, autofluorescence with near infrared light (NIRL) has been described for PG visualization. The aim of this study is to analyze the increased rate of visualization of PGs with the use of NIRL compared to white light (WL). All patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery were included in this study. PGs were identified with both NIRL and WL by experienced head and neck surgeons. The number of PGs identified with NIRL and WL were compared. The identification of PGs was correlated to age, sex, and histopathological diagnosis. Seventy-four patients were included in the study. The mean age was 48.4 (SD ±13.5) years old. Mean PG fluorescence intensity (47.60) was significantly higher compared to the thyroid gland (22.32) and background (9.27) (p < 0.0001). The mean number of PGs identified with NIRL and WL were 3.7 and 2.5 PG, respectively (p < 0.001). The difference in the number of PGs identified with NIRL and WL and fluorescence intensity was not related to age, sex, or histopathological diagnosis, with the exception of the diagnosis of thyroiditis, in which there was a significant increase in the number of PGs visualized with NIRL (p = 0.026). The use of NIRL for PG visualization significantly increased the number of PGs identified during thyroid and parathyroid surgery, and the differences in fluorescent intensity among PGs, thyroid glands, and background were not affected by age, sex, and histopathological diagnosis. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 45% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 24 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,001,746
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,955
of 6,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,369
of 324,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#64
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,940 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 324,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 58% of its contemporaries.