Title |
Totally extraperitoneal repair under general anesthesia versus Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia: a prospective randomized controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00464-013-3269-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Devi S. Dhankhar, Naveen Sharma, Tushar Mishra, Navneet Kaur, Seema Singh, Sanjay Gupta |
Abstract |
Lichtenstein repair (preferably under local anesthesia) or totally extraperitoneal repair (TEP) are both good options for treating uncomplicated unilateral inguinal hernia. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the outcome of TEP repair under general anesthesia versus open Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty under local anesthesia. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Algeria | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Denmark | 1 | 1% |
Peru | 1 | 1% |
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 12% |
Researcher | 9 | 11% |
Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
Other | 7 | 8% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
Other | 19 | 22% |
Unknown | 26 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 51% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
Other | 5 | 6% |
Unknown | 30 | 35% |
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 08 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,678,896
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,358
of 6,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,325
of 215,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#46
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,014 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 215,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.