↓ Skip to main content

Suture Cruroplasty Versus Prosthetic Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernia

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, February 2016
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 (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Suture Cruroplasty Versus Prosthetic Hiatal Herniorrhaphy for Large Hiatal Hernia
Published in
Annals of Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1097/sla.0000000000001267
Pubmed ID
Authors

Muhammed Ashraf Memon, Breda Memon, Rossita Mohamad Yunus, Shahjahan Khan

Abstract

The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 methods of hiatal closure for large hiatal hernia and to evaluate their strengths and flaws. Prospective RCTs comparing suture cruroplasty versus prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia were selected by searching PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials published between January 1991 and October 2014. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration, and reoperation. These outcomes were unanimously decided to be important because they influence the practical approach toward patient management. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size of both dichotomous and continuous data. Heterogeneity among the outcome variables of these trials was determined by the Cochran's Q statistic and I index. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four RCTs were analyzed totaling 406 patients (Suture = 186, Prosthesis = 220). For only 1 of the 4 outcomes, ie, reoperation rate (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.18, 11.82, P = 0.03), the pooled effect size favored prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy over suture cruroplasty. For other outcomes, comparable effect sizes were noted for both groups which included recurrence of hiatal hernia or wrap migration (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.92, 4.39, P = 0.07), operating time (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.16, -0.24, P = 0.19) and complication rates (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.45, 2.50, P = 0.90). On the basis of our meta-analysis and its limitations, we believe that the prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy and suture cruroplasty produces comparable results for repair of large hiatal hernias. In the future, a number of issues need to be addressed to determine the clinical outcomes, safety, and effectiveness of these 2 methods for elective surgical treatment of large hiatal hernias. Presently, the use of prosthetic hiatal herniorrhaphy for large hiatal hernia cannot be endorsed routinely and the decision for the placement of mesh needs to be individualized based on the operative findings and the surgeon's recommendation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 68%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Unknown 16 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#5,225,846
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#3,125
of 9,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,388
of 406,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#53
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 406,429 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.