You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Demonstration of a box-stitch technique for laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3335-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Allison M. Wyman, Lindsey Hahn, Emad Mikhail, Stuart Hart |
| Abstract |
We demonstrate a novel box stitch technique of laparoscopic post-hysterectomy uterosacral ligament suspension for apical prolapse in restorative pelvic reconstructive surgery. We present a case of a 58yo female with symptomatic stage III pelvic organ prolapse with a history of a total abdominal hysterectomy 30 years prior. She strongly desired the usage of no synthetic or biologic mesh for her restorative surgical repair. This video provides a step-by-step guide on how to perform a laparoscopic box stitch as a technique for uterosacral ligament suspension as an apical native tissue option for patients with the need for post hysterectomy apical prolapse. This video demonstrates a novel box-stitch technique of laparoscopic post-hysterectomy uterosacral ligament suspension as a native tissue option for minimally invasive reconstructive surgery. The procedure is a reasonable option to address apical prolapse in patients who do not desire or who are unable to have synthetic or biologic mesh placed for restorative reconstructive prolapse surgery. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 33% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#2,449
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,260
of 323,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#29
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 323,433 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.