↓ Skip to main content

Sacral nerve stimulation—hidden costs (uncovered)

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Colorectal Disease, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Sacral nerve stimulation—hidden costs (uncovered)
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00384-016-2512-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Zeiton, Sara Faily, James Nicholson, Karen Telford, Abhiram Sharma

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the occurrence of surgical revision in a cohort of patients treated with sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for faecal incontinence and constipation and to establish the types of procedures performed and indications for surgery. From the years 2002 to 2014, 125 patients were identified who had undergone permanent SNS therapy with 36 (28.8 %) patients requiring surgical intervention postimplantation. These cases were retrospectively reviewed (range of follow-up 1-99 months). Over a total of 1512 months of SNS treatment, 51 unplanned surgical procedures were required in 36 patients. At present, 48 procedures have been performed at an average of 2.6 years following implantation and three patients are awaiting surgery. Lead-related problems accounted for 30 (58.8 %) procedures at an average of 1.7 years affecting 22 patients. Battery and implantable pulse generator-related problems attributed to 13 procedures (25.5 %) in 12 patients at an average of 5.0 years. Battery depletion occurred in seven patients at an average of 5.4 years. Surgical revision was required to replace, remove, or resite various components of the SNS system. Indications for surgery included lead damage, pain and loss or lack of SNS efficacy. Explantation was warranted in six patients due to poor SNS efficacy, pain, infection and facilitation of a magnetic resonance imaging scan. This was performed at an average of 1.6 years. A considerable proportion of patients treated with SNS therapy require surgical revision. These unplanned procedures are associated with substantial unexpected costs that financially burden SNS services.

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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 22%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Engineering 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,760,372
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,189
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,158
of 397,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#20
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,832 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 397,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 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 69% of its contemporaries.