You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative analysis of primary repair vs resection and anastomosis, with laparostomy, in management of typhoid intestinal perforation: results of a rural hospital in northwestern Benin
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Gastroenterology, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-230x-13-102 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roberto Caronna, Alassan Kadiri Boukari, Dieudonnè Zaongo, Thierry Hessou, Rènè Castro Gayito, Cesar Ahononga, Sosten Adeniran, Giambattista Priuli |
| Abstract |
BACKGROUND: The objective is to compare primary repair vs intestinal resection in cases of intestinal typhoid perforations. In addition, we hypothesised the usefulness of laparostomy for the early diagnosis and treatment of complications. METHODS: 111 patients with acute peritonitis underwent emergency laparotomy: number of perforations, distance of perforations from the ileocaecal valve, and type of surgery performed were recorded. A laparostomy was then created and explored every 48 to 72 hours. The patients were then divided into two groups according to the surgical technique adopted at the initial laparotomy: primary repair (Group A) or intestinal resection with anastomosis (Group B). Clinical data, intraoperative findings, complications and mortality were evaluated and compared for each group. RESULTS: In 104/111 patients we found intestinal perforations, multiple in 47.1% of patients. 75 had primary repair (Group A) and 26 had intestinal resection with anastomosis (Group B). Group B patients had more perforations than patients in Group A (p = 0.0001). At laparostomy revision, the incidence of anastomotic dehiscence was greater than that of primary repair dehiscence (p = 0.032). The incidence of new perforations was greater in Group B than in Group A (p = 0.01). Group B correlates with a higher morbility and with a higher number of laparostomy revisions than Group A (p = 0.005).There was no statistical difference in terms of mortality between Group A and Group B. Presence of pus in the abdominal cavity at initial laparotomy correlates with significantly higher mortality (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Resection and anastomosis shows greater morbidity than primary repair. Laparostomy revision makes it possible to rapidly identify new perforations and anastomotic or primary repair dehiscences; although this approach may seem aggressive, the number of operations was greater in patients who had a favourable outcome, and does not correlate with mortality. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 22% |
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 21 June 2013.
All research outputs
#18,340,605
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#1,130
of 1,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,808
of 196,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#24
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 196,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.