↓ Skip to main content

Failed Primary Bladder Exstrophy Closure with Osteotomy: Multivariable Analysis of a 25-Year Experience

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Urology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Failed Primary Bladder Exstrophy Closure with Osteotomy: Multivariable Analysis of a 25-Year Experience
Published in
The Journal of Urology, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pokket Sirisreetreerux, Kathy M. Lue, Thammasin Ingviya, Daniel A. Friedlander, Heather N. Di Carlo, Paul D. Sponseller, John P. Gearhart

Abstract

A successful primary bladder exstrophy closure provides the best opportunity for patients to achieve a functional closure and urinary continence regardless of the method of repair. Use of osteotomy during initial closure has significantly improved success rates, however failures can still occur. This study aimed to identify factors that contribute to a failed primary exstrophy closure with osteotomy. A prospectively-maintained institutional database was reviewed for classic bladder exstrophy patients who were primarily closed with osteotomy at our institution or referred after primary closure from 1990 to 2015. Data were collected regarding gender, closure, osteotomy, immobilization, orthopaedics, and perioperative pain control. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine predictors of failure. 156 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall failure rate was 30% (13% from the authors' institution and 87% from outside centers). On multivariable analysis, use of Buck's traction (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.60, p=.011) and immobilization time greater than 4 weeks (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.04-0.86, p=.031) had significantly lower odds of failure. Osteotomy performed by general orthopaedic surgeons had significantly higher odds of failure (OR 23.47; 95% CI 1.45-379.19, p=.027). Type of osteotomy and use of epidural anesthesia did not significantly impact failure rates. Proper immobilization with modified Buck's traction and external fixation, immobilization time greater than 4 weeks, and having the osteotomy undertaken by a pediatric orthopaedic surgeon are crucial factors for a successful primary closure with osteotomy.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 7 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 40%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Unknown 8 53%
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 06 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,561,898
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Urology
#63
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,675
of 328,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Urology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 114 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 328,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 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.