| Title |
A 19 year population-based cohort study analysing reoperation for recurrence following laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repairs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Hernia, November 2019
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10029-019-02073-w |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. Ramsay, N. W. Scott, J. O. Jansen |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic (LHR) and open (OHR) inguinal hernia repairs are both used to treat primary herniae. This study analyses the rates of operation for recurrence after laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair, at a population level, while considering competing risks, such as death and other operative interventions. This is a population cohort study in Scotland. All adult patients who had a primary inguinal hernia repair in Scotland between 01/04/1996 and 01/01/2015 were included. The main outcome was recurrent operations. Cumulative incidence functions (CIF) were calculated for competing risks of death. A cox proportional hazards regression model was used to control for confounders of age, gender, bilateral herniae, deprivation and year of procedure. Of 88,590 patients, there were 10,145 LHR and 78,445 OHR. Recurrent operations were required in 1397 (1.8%) OHR and 362 (3.6%). LHR had greater hazard of recurrence than OHR (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.61-2.08, p < 0.001). Faster time to recurrence was also associated with being older (HR for one year increase: 1.010, 95% CI 1.007-1.013, p < 0.001), being more affluent (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01-1.38, p = 0.04) and having a bilateral index operation (HR 2.53, 95% CI 2.22-2.88, p < 0.001). LHR is becoming more popular in Scotland over the past 2 decades. However, when other key confounding factors are controlled, it is associated with a higher recurrence rate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 55% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 03 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,284,743
of 23,177,498 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#341
of 1,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,687
of 459,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,177,498 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 1,127 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 459,330 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 53% of its contemporaries.