↓ Skip to main content

Post-operative ovarian adhesion formation after ovarian drilling: a randomized study comparing conventional laparoscopy and transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Post-operative ovarian adhesion formation after ovarian drilling: a randomized study comparing conventional laparoscopy and transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy
Published in
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00404-016-4146-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierluigi Giampaolino, Ilaria Morra, Giovanni Antonio Tommaselli, Costantino Di Carlo, Carmine Nappi, Giuseppe Bifulco

Abstract

To compare conventional laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) ovarian drilling in terms of ovarian adhesion formation, evaluated using office THL during follow-up in CC-resistant anovulatory patients affected by PCOS. Prospective randomized study on 246 CC-resistant women with PCOS. The patients enrolled were divided into two groups, 123 were scheduled to undergo LOD and 123 to undergo THL ovarian drilling. Six months after the procedure all patients were offered office transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) follow-up, under local anesthesia to evaluate adhesion formation. Duration of the procedure was significantly shorter in the THL group in comparison with LOD group (p < 0.0001). No intra- or post-operative complication was observed in any of the patients in both groups. Post-operative THL follow-up after 6 months showed that 15 (15.5 %) patients in the THL group and 73 (70.2 %) in the LOD group showed the presence of ovarian adhesion. This difference was highly significant with a p value <0.0001 and a relative risk of 0.22 [95 % IC 0.133-0.350]. This study seems to indicate that THL ovarian drilling may reduce the risk of ovarian adhesion formation and could be used as a safe and effective option to reduce ovarian adhesion formation in patients undergoing ovarian drilling.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 13 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 43%
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 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,325,024
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#453
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,340
of 358,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 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 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 358,966 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.