↓ Skip to main content

Avoiding Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Requiring Complete Pelvic Peritonectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Avoiding Diverting Ileostomy in Patients Requiring Complete Pelvic Peritonectomy
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, November 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4961-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul H. Sugarbaker

Abstract

In performing cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic perioperative chemotherapy, a rectosigmoid colon resection is frequently required. To reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage at the colorectal anastomoses, a diverting ileostomy has been recommended in these patients. Stripping of mesorectal fat from the rectum up to the peritoneal reflection allows transection of the rectum at the junction of the upper and middle rectum. A suture pulls in the lateral aspects of the rectal staple line so that this staple line is included within the barrel of the stapler. After the circular-stapled anastomoses is complete, a second layer of silk sutures is used to invert the staple line. In 31 stapled colorectal anastomoses, three rectal transections were so low that a layer of sutures was not possible. In the 29 two-layer colorectal anastomoses, no anastomotic leakages were observed. The incidence of diverting ileostomy was reduced from 50 to 7 %. These results suggest that preservation of a 10-15 cm length of rectum allows a second layer of sutures to be placed over the stapled colorectal anastomoses. This is a safe alternative to a diverting ileostomy in selected patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 64%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 May 2018.
All research outputs
#12,891,825
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#3,556
of 6,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,129
of 285,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#38
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 285,492 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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.