| Title |
A randomised, multi-centre, prospective, observer and patient blind study to evaluate a non-absorbable polypropylene mesh vs. a partly absorbable mesh in incisional hernia repair
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-012-1009-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. Rickert, P. Kienle, A. Kuthe, P. Baumann, R. Engemann, J. Kuhlgatz, M. von Frankenberg, H. P. Knaebel, M. W. Büchler |
| Abstract |
The implantation of a polymer mesh is considered as the standard treatment for incisional hernia. It leads to lower recurrence rates compared to suture techniques without mesh implantation; however, there are also some drawbacks to mesh repair. The operation is more complex and peri-operative infectious complications are increased. Yet it is not clear to what extent a mesh implantation influences quality of life or leads to chronic pain or discomfort. The influence of the material, textile structure and size of the mesh remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate if a non-absorbable, large pore-sized, lightweight polypropylene (PP) mesh leads to a better health outcome compared to a partly absorbable mesh. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 19 | 22% |
| Unknown | 15 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 58 | 68% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
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 06 October 2012.
All research outputs
#20,169,675
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#869
of 1,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,340
of 172,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,117 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 172,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.