↓ Skip to main content

Stump appendicitis: a retrospective review of 3130 consecutive appendectomy cases

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Emergency Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Stump appendicitis: a retrospective review of 3130 consecutive appendectomy cases
Published in
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13017-018-0182-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enis Dikicier, Fatih Altintoprak, Kayhan Ozdemir, Kemal Gundogdu, Mustafa Yener Uzunoglu, Guner Cakmak, Feyyaz Onuray, Recai Capoglu

Abstract

Stump appendicitis is inflammation of remnant appendix tissue due to incomplete removal of the appendix. Due to appendectomy history, stump appendicitis diagnosis is usually delay and that can cause increase morbidity. Medical records of patients who had surgery for acute appendicitis at a single center from 2008 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. During the evaluation of medical records, patients that had a previous operation for acute appendicitis or had "stump appendicitis" as an exploratory finding in operation notes were included. Appendectomy was performed in 3130 patients (2630 open surgeries and 380 laparoscopic surgeries). Stump appendicitis was diagnosed in five patients (0.15%). The appendectomies had been performed 4, 5, 7, 7, and 11 years previously. Mean time taken for surgery was 36 h after symptoms began. Open surgery was performed in three patients, laparoscopic procedures in others. Awareness of stump appendicitis before radiological examinations may facilitate accurate diagnosis and decrease the duration of the decision-making process, leading to decreased morbidity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 > Bachelor 13 24%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 33%
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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,506,328
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#484
of 557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,965
of 330,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Emergency Surgery
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 330,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.