| Title |
Pelvic floor function following ventral rectopexy versus STARR in the treatment of obstructed defecation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-018-1776-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. F. Altomare, A. Picciariello, R. Memeo, M. Fanelli, R. Digennaro, N. Chetta, M. De Fazio |
| Abstract |
Obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS), most commonly found in females, can be treated by a transanal or abdominal approach with good success rate. Nevertheless, patients may experience de novo or persisting pelvic floor dysfunctions after surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcome of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) and ventral rectopexy (VRP) in a series of ODS patients. Forty-nine female patients who had surgery for ODS between 2006 and 2016 were retrospectively evaluated: 28 (median age 60 years, IQR 54-69 years) had VRP and 21 (median age 58 years, IQR 51-66 years) had STARR. ODS was scored with the ODS score while the overall pelvic floor function was assessed with the three axial perineal evaluation (TAPE) score. Quality-of-life was evaluated by the patient assessment of constipation quality-of-life (PAC-Qol) questionnaire administered preoperatively and after 1 year of follow-up. The preoperative median ODS score and TAPE score were comparable in both groups. After a median follow-up of 12 months (range 12-18 months), the median ODS score was 12 (range 10-20) in the STARR group and 9 (range 3-15) in the VRP one (p = 0.02), while the median TAPE score was 70.5 (IQR 60.6-77.3) in the former and 76.8 (IQR 70.2-89.7) in the latter (p = 0.01). Postoperatively the physical domain of the PAC-QoL score had a median value of 2.74 (IQR 1.7-3.75) in the STARR group compared to 1.5 (IQR 1-2.5) in the VRP group (p = 0.03). No major complications were recorded in either group. VRP and STARR can improve defecation in patients with ODS with minimal complications, but the overall pelvic wellness evaluated by the TAPE score improves significantly only after VRP, suggesting a better performance of VRP than STARR when overall pelvic floor function is concerned. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 | 10 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 7% |
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Italy | 3 | 5% |
| Turkey | 3 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Paraguay | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 21 | 36% |
| Scientists | 6 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 6 | 14% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,193,115
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#68
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,776
of 334,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 334,294 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.