↓ Skip to main content

Trends and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pyloromyotomy

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Trends and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pyloromyotomy
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6060-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

William C. Kethman, Alex H. S. Harris, Mary T. Hawn, James K. Wall

Abstract

Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS) is one of the most common pediatric illnesses necessitating surgical intervention. Controversy remains over the optimal surgical approach between laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) and open pyloromyotomy (OP). LP has gained acceptance for management of HPS in an era of expanding minimal access surgical approaches to pediatric conditions. Several studies suggest advantages of LP over OP; however, selection bias and small sample sizes remain a concern. This study compares the outcomes of LP versus OP using propensity score methods. The 2013-2015 ACS NSQIP Pediatric PUF was queried for all infants undergoing pyloromyotomy. The trend in the proportion of infants undergoing LP was described and perioperative outcomes between the OP and LP cohorts were compared using propensity score weighted regression models. 4847 infants were identified to have undergone surgical pyloromyotomy. The proportion of LP performed increased significantly from 59% in 2013 to 65.5% in 2015 (p < 0.001). LP was associated with lower overall complications (1.4% vs 2.9%) (ORadj 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.80), surgical site-related complications (1.1% vs 2.1%) (ORadj 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84), and post-operative length of stay (1.5 days vs 1.9 days) (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98) without significant differences in related re-operation (0.9% vs 0.9%) (ORadj 1.01, 95% CI 0.52-1.93) or readmissions (1.4% vs 2.1%) (ORadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.17). Our study demonstrates that LP is increasingly utilized for management of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis and is associated with shorter length of stay, and lower odds of surgical site-specific and overall complications without differences in related re-operations. This study supports LP as a safe and effective method for management of HPS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 42%
Unspecified 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,132,565
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#600
of 6,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,102
of 443,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#35
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 443,833 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.