↓ Skip to main content

Mesh penetrating the cecum and bladder following inguinal hernia surgery: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Mesh penetrating the cecum and bladder following inguinal hernia surgery: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13256-017-1435-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Asano, Saori Yajima, Yoshie Hosoi, Makoto Takagi, Hiroyuki Fukano, Yasuhiro Ohara, Nozomi Shinozuka, Takaya Ichimura

Abstract

Tension-free repair using mesh is a common inguinal hernia surgical procedure. However, various complications such as mesh-related infection and recurrence may develop as a result. Moreover, although rare, there are also reports of intestinal obstruction caused by adhesion of the mesh to the intestinal wall and cases of mesh migration into various organs. Here, we report our experience with a patient in whom mesh extraction was performed due to migration of mesh into the intestinal tract following inguinal hernia surgery and formation of a fistula with the bladder. Our patient was a 63-year-old Japanese man who had a history of operative treatment for right inguinal hernia during early childhood. Because a relapse subsequently occurred, he was diagnosed as having recurrent right inguinal hernia at the age of 56 years for which operative treatment (the Kugel method) was performed. He presented to our hospital 6 years later with the chief complaint of lower abdominal pain. Computed tomography findings revealed a mass shadow in contact with his bladder and cecal walls, and enteric bacteria were detected in his urine. Furthermore, because lower gastrointestinal endoscopic findings confirmed mesh in the cecum, we performed operative treatment. The mesh had migrated into the cecum and a fistula with his bladder had formed. We removed the mesh through ileocecal resection and partial cystectomy. It appeared that a peritoneal defect occurred when the mesh was placed, allowing the mesh to migrate into our patient's intestinal tract. Because contact between the mesh and the cecum resulted in inflammation, a fistula formed in his bladder. It is important to completely close the peritoneum when placing the mesh.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 23%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 10 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Computer Science 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unknown 11 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 April 2023.
All research outputs
#16,347,823
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,278
of 4,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,515
of 325,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#22
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,638 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 325,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.