| Title |
Global audit on bowel perforations related to transanal irrigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-015-1400-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Christensen, K. Krogh, B. Perrouin-Verbe, D. Leder, G. Bazzocchi, B. Petersen Jakobsen, A. V. Emmanuel |
| Abstract |
Transanal irrigation is increasingly used against chronic constipation and fecal incontinence in selected patients. The aims were to estimate the incidence of irrigation-related bowel perforation in patients using the Peristeen Anal Irrigation(®) system, and to explore patient- and procedure-related factors associated with perforation. External independent expert audit on the complete set of global vigilance data related to Peristeen Anal Irrigation from 2005 to 2013. In total, 49 reports of bowel perforation had been recorded. Based on sales figures, this corresponds to an average risk of bowel perforation of 6 per million procedures. The latest two-year data indicate a risk of 2 per million procedures. In 29 out of 43 evaluable cases (67 %), perforation happened within the first 8 weeks since start of treatment. After 8 weeks, long-term use has an estimated risk of less than 2 per million procedures. Among patients with non-neurogenic bowel dysfunction, 11 out of 15 (73 %) had a history of pelvic organ surgery compared to 5 out of 26 (19 %) in neurogenic bowel dysfunction. In 11 of 46 (24 %) evaluable cases, burst of the rectal balloon was reported. Enema-induced perforation is a rare complication to transanal irrigation with Peristeen Anal Irrigation, which increases the benefit risk ratio in support of the further use of transanal irrigation. Increased risk is present during treatment initiation and in patients with prior pelvic organ surgery. Careful patient selection, patient evaluation and proper training of patients are critical to safe practice of this technique. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 67 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 28 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#4,733,586
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#487
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,092
of 252,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#5
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
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 252,702 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.