| Title |
Laparoscopy for bowel obstruction—a contradiction? Results of a multi-institutional survey in Germany
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00384-016-2557-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Zimmermann, M. Hoffmann, T. Laubert, H. P. Bruch, T. Keck, C. Benecke, E. Schlöricke |
| Abstract |
The purpose of the present study was to investigate on the acceptance and frequency of laparoscopic surgery for the management of acute and chronic bowel obstruction in a general patient population in German hospitals. To receive an authoritative opinion on laparoscopic treatment of bowel obstruction in Germany, a cross-sectional online study was conducted. We designed an online-based survey, supported by the German College of Surgeons (Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgen, BDC) to get multi-institutional-based data from various level providers of patient care. Between January and February 2014, we received completed questionnaires from 235 individuals (16.7 %). The participating surgeons were a representative sample of German hospitals with regard to hospital size, level of center size, and localization. A total of 74.9 % (n = 176) of all responders stated to use laparoscopy as the initial step of exploration in expected bowel obstruction. This procedure was highly statistically associated with the frequency of overall laparoscopic interventions and laparoscopic experience. The overall conversion rate was reported to be 29.4 %. This survey, investigating on the use of laparoscopic exploration or interventions in bowel obstruction, was able to show that by now, a majority of the responding surgeons accept laparoscopy as an initial step for exploration of the abdomen in the case of bowel obstruction. Laparoscopy was considered to be at least comparable to open surgery in an emergency setting. Furthermore, data analysis demonstrated generally accepted advantages and disadvantages of the laparoscopic approach. Indications for or against laparoscopy are made after careful consideration in each individual case. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 29% |
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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,793,546
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,193
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,965
of 300,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#16
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 300,005 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 57% of its contemporaries.