↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres

Overview of attention for article published in Updates in Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 701)
  • 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
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Laparoscopic adhesiolysis: not for all patients, not for all surgeons, not in all centres
Published in
Updates in Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13304-018-0534-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salomone Di Saverio, Arianna Birindelli, Richard Ten Broek, Justin R. Davies, Matteo Mandrioli, Ville Sallinen

Abstract

ASBO is a common cause of emergency surgery and the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of these patients is still under debate and conflicting results have been published, in particular regarding the high risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. In fact, although over the last few years there has been an increasing enthusiasm in the surgical community about the advantages and potential better outcomes of laparoscopic management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO), recently published studies have introduced a significant word of caution. From 2011 in our centre, we have started to systematically approach ASBO in carefully selected patients with a step-by-step standardized laparoscopic procedure, developed and performed by a single operator experienced in emergency laparoscopy, collecting data in a prospective database. Inclusion criteria were: stable patients (without diffuse peritonitis and/or septic shock with suspicion of bowel perforation), CT scan findings consistent with a clear transition point and therefore suspected to have a single obstructing adhesive band. Patients with diffuse SB distension in the absence of a well-defined transition point and suspected to have diffuse matted adhesions (based on their surgical history and radiological findings) should be initially managed conservatively, including gastrografin challenge. Up to date, 83 patients were enrolled in the study. The rate of iatrogenic full-thickness bowel injury was 4/83 (4.8%); two of these cases were managed with simple repair and the other two required bowel resection and anastomosis. Conversion to open was performed in 3/4 of these cases, whereas in one a repair of the full-thickness injury was completed laparoscopically. All the iatrogenic injuries were detected intraoperatively and none of the reoperations that occurred in this series were due to missed bowel injuries. At 30 days follow-up, none reported incisional hernias or SSI or death. With the described accurate selection of patients, the use of such standardized step-by-step technique and in the presence of dedicated operating surgeons with advanced emergency surgery laparoscopic expertise, such procedure can be safe and feasible with multiple advantages in terms of morbidity and LOS. A careful preoperative selection of those patients who might be best candidates for laparoscopic adhesiolysis is needed. The level of laparoscopic expertise can also be highly variable, and not having advanced surgical expertise in the specific subspecialty of emergency laparoscopy, ultimately resulting in performing standardized procedures with proper careful and safe step-by-step technique, is highly recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 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 %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 25 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Engineering 1 2%
Unknown 25 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,213,357
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#49
of 701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,967
of 332,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#2
of 7 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 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 701 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 332,927 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.