↓ Skip to main content

Long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11701-017-0757-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Jong, Ted Klein, Philippe E. Zimmern

Abstract

The aim of the study is to evaluate anatomic and functional late-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy (RMS) at a single tertiary-care institution. Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review of a prospectively collected database on consecutive patients who underwent RMS for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and had 3 year minimum follow-up was performed. Data collected included physical examination, validated questionnaires including Urogenital Distress Inventory, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, and global Quality of Life (QOL). The primary outcome was failure defined as the need for re-operation and/or prolapse recurrence by examination. Those with office follow-up < 36 months underwent structured phone interviews. Between 12/2007 and 2/2012, 56 women underwent RMS. Thirty women had follow-up ≥ 3 years (median 64 (IQR 48-85) months). Mean C-point went from - 2.33 (range 0 to - 5) to - 9.00 (0 to - 12) (p < 0.01), and mean QOL score from 3.93 (0-10) to 1.93 (0-8) (p < 0.01). Two developed recurrent vault prolapse later on at 26 and 34 months, respectively. Four women (13%) required surgery for secondary prolapses, with three for anterior compartment and one for posterior compartment. Sixteen of twenty six were contacted via structured phone interviews, with 14 doing well, one deceased, and one who underwent a secondary posterior compartment prolapse 6 years later at an outside facility. This long-term study indicates durability for RMS in the management of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Mathematics 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#12,996,075
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#244
of 689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,006
of 323,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 689 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 323,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 66% of its contemporaries.