↓ Skip to main content

Recurrent intestinal intussusception in an adult due to intestinal pseudopolyps not associated with inflammatory bowel disease: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Recurrent intestinal intussusception in an adult due to intestinal pseudopolyps not associated with inflammatory bowel disease: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13256-015-0754-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Martínez-Ubieto, Teresa Jiménez-Bernadó, Alvaro Bueno-Delgado, Javier Martínez-Ubieto, Ana Pascual-Bellosta

Abstract

Intestinal intussusception is very rare in adults and, unlike in children, it is due to an organic cause, mainly benign or malignant tumors, in 90 % of cases. Recurrent intussusception in an adult is even more exceptional, and in the case reported it was due to repeated occurrence of intestinal pseudopolyps, which is exceptional according to the literature. Preoperative diagnosis is difficult, and surgery is always indicated because a tumor is usually present. The surgical procedure may be controversial, as some would prefer desintussusception before resection, while others would advocate initial resection because of the risk of dissemination if a malignant lesion exists. We report the case of a 34-year-old Caucasian man who underwent emergency laparoscopic surgery for intestinal obstruction and was found to have a jejunal intussusception. Polyps or pseudopolyps, some of them large and causing the intussusception, were seen in the surgical specimen. Our patient had also undergone surgery for intussusception 10 years before, after which the pathological report also noted the presence of these formations. Recurrent intussusception in adults due to the presence of intestinal pseudopolyps is exceptional and, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first such case reported.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Master 3 17%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Philosophy 1 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
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 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,299,108
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#3,485
of 3,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,644
of 386,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#23
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 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 3,922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 386,223 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 34 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.