↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

5 tweeters


7 Dimensions

Readers on

14 Mendeley
Long-Term Outcome of Interrupted Arch Repair With Direct Anastomosis and Homograft Augmentation Patch
Published in
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, June 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.035
Pubmed ID

Mohammed Mohsin Uzzaman, Natasha E. Khan, Ben Davies, John Stickley, Timothy J. Jones, William J. Brawn, David J. Barron


We analysed outcomes of IAA repair using a standardised technique in order to interpret the role of the arch repair on late outcomes in this complex and heterogeneous group. Single institution study from 1988-2015. 120 cases of IAA were divided into four groups: IAA with VSD (iVSD, n=38), IAA with Norwood/DKS (iNor, n=41), IAA with Truncus (iTruncus, n=24) and miscellaneous group (iMisc, n=17). Arch repair performed using a standard technique of direct anastomosis with homograft patch augmentation. IAA were predominantly Type B (n=81, 68%), and Type A (n=34, 28%), with a significant association of type B with truncus, and type A with AP window (p<0.01). Survival was similar in all groups. The incidence of catheter or surgical re-intervention was 18% (CI 10-25%) at 5 years and 18% (CI 10-25%) at 10 years, with catheter reintervention more common and occurring before 18 months. Surgical reintervention occurred in 7% (CI 2-13%) at 5 and 10 years, and was lower in the iTruncus (0%) and iNor (5%) at 10 years. There was no bronchial obstruction or aortic aneurysm. Cox proportional hazard model showed that weight at surgery <2.5kg and era of surgery were predictive of outcome, with surgical mortality in all variants dropping to 8.3% in the last 15 years of the study. Repair of IAA using direct anastomosis and patch augmentation is applicable to all variants and provides good long-term arch patency. Survival is strongly associated with weight at surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Other 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Computer Science 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Chemistry 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 14%

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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
of 13,044,924 outputs
Outputs from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
of 5,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,044,924 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 271,253 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.