↓ Skip to main content

Robotic repair of a vesicovaginal fistula in an irradiated field using a dehydrated amniotic allograft as an interposition patch

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Robotic repair of a vesicovaginal fistula in an irradiated field using a dehydrated amniotic allograft as an interposition patch
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11701-015-0546-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

David T. Price, Tina C. Price

Abstract

We report the case of a 66 year old female with a supratrigonal vesicovaginal fistula (VVF) that developed after undergoing radical hysterectomy, chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy for advanced cervical cancer. VVF repairs in an irradiated field are known to be complicated procedures with significant morbidity and a high rate of failure due to the effect of radiation. Amniotic membranes have been demonstrated to improve healing rates in difficult to heal wounds. To decrease morbidity a minimally invasive robotic procedure was performed and a dehydrated amniotic allograft patch was used to augment tissue healing. The VVF was repaired using the da Vinci Surgical System and the amniotic membrane was used as an interposition patch over the repair. There were no operative or postoperative complications and the patient was discharged home on postoperative day one. A cystogram performed 3 weeks postoperatively demonstrated a healed fistula. Follow-up at 5 months revealed no incontinence. This is the first reported case of a robotic VVF repair performed in an irradiated pelvis and the first use of an amniotic membrane allograft in the repair a VVF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 50%
Engineering 3 11%
Psychology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,965,297
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#174
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,320
of 389,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 389,175 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.