↓ Skip to main content

The natural history of perforated marginal ulcers after gastric bypass surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
The natural history of perforated marginal ulcers after gastric bypass surgery
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5794-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria S. Altieri, Aurora Pryor, Jie Yang, Donglei Yin, Salvatore Docimo, Andrew Bates, Mark Talamini, Konstantinos Spaniolas

Abstract

Although perforated marginal ulcers (pMU) following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) represent a surgical emergency, the epidemiology and outcome of this condition is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate incidence of pMU following RYGB and assess the natural history of this complication. The SPARCS administrative database was used to identify patients undergoing RYGB between 2005 and 2010. With the use of a unique identifier, we followed patients up to 2014 for subsequent admission and re-intervention (repair or revision) for perforated MU. Groups were compared using Chi square tests with exact p values based on Monte Carlo simulation, t test with unequal variances, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test when appropriate. We identified 35,080 RYGB patients; 292 patients (0.83%) developed pMU 937 (443-1546) days following RYGB [Median (Q1-Q3)]. Among these 292 patients, tobacco use was present in one-third of patients. Repair of the perforation was performed in 115 patients, while anastomotic revision was reported in 64. Patients who underwent revision were more likely to have respiratory complications. Hospital length of stay was significantly longer for patients managed with RYGB revision (Median, Q1-Q3:7, 5-14, vs 6, 4-7, days, p = 0.001). Recurrence of marginal ulcer was common after either intervention (26.09% for repair and 29.69% for revision, p = 0.726). Following RYGB, the incidence of pMU is small. Anastomotic revision for pMU is associated with prolonged length of stay compared to repair alone. Importantly, recurrence after intervention of pMU is common, suggesting possible value of a routine surveillance program for patients following pMU.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 11 25%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,194,272
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#640
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,217
of 316,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#22
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 316,647 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 143 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.