| Title |
Has Shouldice Repair in a Selected Group of Patients with Inguinal Hernia Comparable Results to Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP Techniques?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-017-4433-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. Köckerling, A. Koch, D. Adolf, T. Keller, R. Lorenz, R. H. Fortelny, C. Schug‐Pass |
| Abstract |
In the new international guidelines only the mesh-based Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP techniques are recommended. This present analysis of data from the Herniamed Registry compares the outcome for Shouldice versus Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP. Propensity score matching analyses were performed to obtain homogeneous comparison groups for Shouldice versus Lichtenstein (n = 2115/2608; 81.1%), Shouldice versus TEP (n = 2225/2608; 85.3%) and Shouldice versus TAPP (2400/2608; 92.0%). The most important characteristics of the Shouldice patient collective were younger patients with a mean age of 40 years, a large proportion of women of 30%, a mean BMI value of 24 and a proportion of defect sizes up to 3 cm of over 85%. For this selected patient collective, propensity score matched-pair analysis did not identify any difference in the perioperative and one-year follow-up outcome compared with TAPP, fewer intraoperative (0.5 vs. 1.3%; p = 0.009) but somewhat more postoperative complications (2.3 vs. 1.5%; p = 0.050) compared with TEP and advantages with regard to pain at rest (4.6 vs. 6.1%; p = 0.039) and on exertion (10.0 vs. 13.4%; p < 0.001) compared with the Lichtenstein technique. For a selected group of patients the Shouldice technique can be used for primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair while achieving an outcome comparable to that of Lichtenstein, TEP and TAPP operations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 5% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 14 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 32% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 18 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,606,688
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#364
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,077
of 442,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#13
of 100 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 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 442,518 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 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.