↓ Skip to main content

Snapshot Study on the Value of Omentoplasty in Abdominoperineal Resection with Primary Perineal Closure for Rectal Cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Snapshot Study on the Value of Omentoplasty in Abdominoperineal Resection with Primary Perineal Closure for Rectal Cancer
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
DOI 10.1245/s10434-017-6273-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robin D. Blok, Gijsbert D. Musters, Wernard A. A. Borstlap, Christianne J. Buskens, Wilhelmus A. Bemelman, Pieter J. Tanis, Collaborative Dutch Snapshot Research Group

Abstract

Perineal wound complications are often encountered following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Filling of the pelvic space by omentoplasty (OP) might prevent these complications, but there is scant evidence to support its routine application. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of OP on perineal wound complications. All patients undergoing APR with primary perineal closure (PPC) for non-locally advanced rectal cancer in 71 Dutch centers in 2011 were selected from a cross-sectional snapshot study. Outcomes were compared between PPC with or without OP, which was based on variability in practice among surgeons. Of 639 patients who underwent APR for rectal cancer, 477 had a non-locally advanced tumor and PPC was performed. Of those, 172 (36%) underwent OP. Patients with OP statistically more often underwent an extralevator approach (32% vs. 14%). Median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range 22-47). There were no significant differences with or without OP in terms of non-healing of the perineal wound at 30 days (47% vs. 48%), non-healing at the end of follow-up (9% vs. 5%), pelvic abscess (12% vs. 13%) or re-intervention for ileus (5% vs. 3%). Perineal hernia developed significantly more often after OP (13% vs. 7%), also by multivariable analysis (odds ratio 2.61, 95% confidence interval 1.271-5.364; p = 0.009). In contrast to previous assumptions, OP after APR with PPC appeared not to improve perineal wound healing and seemed to increase the occurrence of perineal hernia. These findings question the routine use of OP for primary filling of the pelvic space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,628,663
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#684
of 6,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,504
of 439,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#12
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 439,149 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.