| Title |
A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence following ileal pouch anal anastomosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Updates in Surgery, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13304-017-0496-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Kong, S. Nikolaou, S. Qiu, G. Pellino, P. Tekkis, C. Kontovounisios |
| Abstract |
Faecal incontinence is a common complication of ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) and seems to worsen with time. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence of the use of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for patients with faecal incontinence after IPAA. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Cochrane databases for all relevant articles. All studies, which reported the outcome of SNS in patients with faecal incontinence after IPAA, were reviewed. Three papers were identified, including a case report, cohort study and retrospective study. The total number of patients was 12. The follow-up duration included 3 months, 6 months and 24 months. After peripheral nerve evaluation, definitive implantation was performed in 10 (83.3%) patients. All three studies reported positive outcomes, with CCF scores and incontinence episodes improving significantly. Preliminary results suggest good outcome after permanent SNS implant. Studies with larger sample sizes, well-defined patient characteristics and standardized outcome measures are required to fully investigate the effect of SNS in IPAA patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Turkey | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,226,589
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#210
of 642 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,853
of 328,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 642 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 328,606 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them