| Title |
Single-layer versus double-layer closure of the enterotomy in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a single-center study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-015-1378-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Reggio, A. Sciuto, D. Cuccurullo, F. Pirozzi, F. Esposito, D. Cusano, F. Corcione |
| Abstract |
The aim of our study was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of totally laparoscopic right colectomy, in particular to compare the incidence of leakage of the ileocolic anastomosis after either single-layer (SL) or double-layer (DL) enterotomy closure. From March 2010 to July 2014, 162 patients underwent laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis. The enterotomy was closed with either SL (77 patients) or DL technique (85 patients). Short-term outcomes in both groups were retrospectively analyzed. Median time to perform the ileocolic anastomosis was similar in the two groups (17 min in SL versus 20 min in DL, p = 0.109). DL closure was associated with a significantly lower incidence of anastomotic leakage (1.2 % in DL vs 7.8 % in SL, p = 0.044). Shorter hospital stay was also observed in the DL group. Adoption of DL closure of the enterotomy resulted in significantly improved outcome. We strongly recommend a double-layer closure technique when performing an intracorporeal enterocolic anastomosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#7,367,974
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#683
of 1,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,720
of 279,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 279,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 61% of its contemporaries.