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 |
Lack of advantages of slit mesh placement during laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TAPP): a single centre, case matched study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Surgery, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12893-018-0409-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Umberto Bracale, Jacopo Andreuccetti, Maurizio Sodo, Giovanni Merola, Giusto Pignata |
| Abstract |
During laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal hernia repair (TAPP) the positioning of the mesh around the spermatic cord could provide an additional anchoring point and ensure better defect closure, thereby preventing mesh movement and recurrence. The primary aim of our retrospective study was to determine if, during a TAPP procedure, an advantageous difference for mesh placement exists between the slit and the non-slit techniques in terms of recurrence rate. Secondary aims were intra and post-operative complications and the time required to return to normal activity. From January 2010 to December 2015, data from patients who had undergone TAPPs at our Institution were prospectively collected. We performed a retrospective case control matched study of two homogenous (BMI, Age, type of hernia) groups of 100 patients who underwent respectively TAPP with no slit mesh placement (Group NS) and slit mesh placement (Group S). Statistical analysis was carried out using a SPSS 20. To compare continuous variables, an independent sample T-test was performed. A Chi-square test was employed for categorical data. No differences were found between the slit and non-slit groups in terms of biometric features and intra and post-operative outcomes were found to be similar in both groups as well. In particular, at mean follow-up of 57.34 ± 10.56 months for Group NS and 55.66 ± 8.61 months for Group S months only one recurrence per group was found. Our study failed to prove a superiority of the slit mesh technique over the no-slit mesh technique during TAPP. However, in light of its not being a randomized study, a subsequent, well-designed RCT would be desirable in order to better determine if the Slit mesh technique could prove to be advantageous enough to justify its routine use during the TAPP procedure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
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 22 September 2018.
All research outputs
#18,649,666
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#631
of 1,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,390
of 342,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#17
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 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 1,341 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 342,063 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 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.