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 |
Tension pneumoperitoneum after surgery for endometrial cancer and hernia in a morbidly obese female: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Case Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13256-018-1581-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bing-Sheng Lin, Yan-Shen Shan, Wan-Chen Liu, Chin-Han Wu, Pei-Ying Wu, Keng-Fu Hsu |
| Abstract |
Obesity is a risk factor for the development of endometrial cancer and abdominal wall hernias. We report a case of tension pneumoperitoneum that developed after gynecological surgery and mesh repair of a ventral hernia. A 57-year-old Asian Taiwanese woman with a body mass index of 52.9 (kg/m2) underwent total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy due to endometrial cancer, and ventral herniorrhaphy with mesh due to ventral hernia. Tension pneumoperitoneum with severe dyspnea developed on postoperative day 14. Rather than performing emergency laparotomy as in visceral perforation, a transabdominal catheter was inserted to drain the intra-abdominal gas. This approach dramatically relieved the tension pneumoperitoneum and dyspnea. Our patient then recovered smoothly; the catheter was removed on postoperative 24, and she was discharged on postoperative day 28. The clinical course of the endometrial cancer and repaired ventral hernia was well at the 1-year follow-up. Tension pneumoperitoneum, which may result from the valve effect of unhealed abdominal mesh, could develop after gynecological surgery and hernia mesh repair in obese patients. Under these conditions, emergency drainage of the intra-abdominal gas by catheter insertion is sufficient to relieve the abdominal pressure and correct the conditions, while emergency laparotomy as in visceral perforation is unnecessary and may increase patient morbidities. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 29% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Energy | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,591,506
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,280
of 3,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,108
of 332,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#48
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 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 3,948 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 332,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.