↓ Skip to main content

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
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.
Title
A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13017-017-0120-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Cirocchi, Sorena Afshar, Salomone Di Saverio, Georgi Popivanov, Angelo De Sol, Francesca Gubbiotti, Gregorio Tugnoli, Massimo Sartelli, Fausto Catena, David Cavaliere, Renata Taboła, Abe Fingerhut, Gian Andrea Binda

Abstract

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970's. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990's. The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990's. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes. The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Student > Postgraduate 12 14%
Researcher 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 68%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 17 20%
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 29 October 2017.
All research outputs
#16,060,034
of 23,837,558 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#340
of 575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,028
of 309,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,837,558 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 575 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 309,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.