↓ Skip to main content

Variation in the use of laparoscopy with inguinal hernia repairs in a sample of pediatric patients at children's hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pediatric Urology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Variation in the use of laparoscopy with inguinal hernia repairs in a sample of pediatric patients at children's hospitals
Published in
Journal of Pediatric Urology, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.10.008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Metachronous contralateral inguinal hernias (MCH) occur in approximately 10% of pediatric patients following unilateral inguinal hernia repairs (UIHR). Laparoscopic evaluation of the contralateral internal ring is a method of identifying high-risk individuals for prophylactic contralateral exploration and repair. The objective of this study was to assess variation in utilization of diagnostic laparoscopy, and report costs associated with the evaluation of a contralateral patent processus vaginalis during hernia repair in pediatric hospitals. The Pediatric Health Information System database was searched to identify outpatient surgical encounters for pediatric patients with a diagnosis of inguinal hernia during a 1-year period (2014). Records were identified that contained diagnostic codes for unilateral or bilateral inguinal hernia in combination with a procedure code for open hernia repair with or without diagnostic laparoscopy. After exclusions there were 3952 hernia repairs performed at 30 hospitals; median age was 4 years (IQR 1-7), 78.8% were male, and 64.9% Caucasian. Three-quarters (76.7%) had UIHR, 8.6% had unilateral repairs with laparoscopy (UIHRL), 12.2% had bilateral inguinal hernia repairs (BIHR), and 2.4% had bilateral repairs with laparoscopy (BIHRL). Where laparoscopy was used, 78% resulted in a unilateral repair and 22% in a bilateral procedure. The percent of patients undergoing laparoscopy varied from 0 to 57% among hospitals, and 0-100% among surgeons. Pediatric surgeons were more than three times more likely to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy compared with pediatric urologists. Median adjusted costs were $2298 (IQR 1659-2955) for UIHR, $2713 (IQR 1873-3409) for UIHRL, $2752 (IQR 2230-3411) for BIHR, and $2783 (IQR 2233-3453) for BIHRL. Median costs varied over two-fold among hospitals ($1310-4434), and over four-fold among surgeons ($948-5040). Data suggested that <10% of patients with clinically unilateral inguinal hernias developed MCH. A negative diagnostic laparoscopy ensured that 0.9-1.31% developed MCH. However, up to 30% of patients underwent contralateral exploration/repair when diagnostic laparoscopy was used. The current study found increased costs associated with the use of laparoscopy, with considerable variation in costs among surgeons and hospitals. These data elucidate competing financial and clinical consequences associated with the use of diagnostic laparoscopy with clinically unilateral hernias. Variation existed in the use of laparoscopy during inguinal hernia repairs and associated costs within the current sample from children's hospitals in the United States. The additional costs of laparoscopic evaluation must be considered against the clinical utility and therapeutic consequences of identifying individuals with a higher risk of metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 20%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 40%
Mathematics 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pediatric Urology
#2,348
of 2,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#321,458
of 446,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pediatric Urology
#43
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,715 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 446,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.