↓ Skip to main content

Use of biologic mesh for a complicated paracolostomy hernia

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Surgery, November 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
4 patents

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Use of biologic mesh for a complicated paracolostomy hernia
Published in
American Journal of Surgery, November 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.07.012
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Parastomal hernias are among the most frustrating and incapacitating complications of permanent colostomies. Because the traditional surgical options of primary repair with or without ostomy repositioning have led to disappointing results, the use of mesh is indicated, especially in the setting of multiple recurrences. After laparoscopic lyses of adhesions, the colostomy is pushed against the lateral abdominal wall, and a bovine pericardium graft is gently stretched and draped over the colostomy (the Sugarbaker technique). Transfascial sutures and tacks are placed along the perimeter of the mesh and around the colon to prevent small bowel herniation. The patient developed a small seroma postoperatively, which resolved spontaneously. At his 17-month follow-up, the patient had no evidence of recurrence, he was pain free, and he was satisfied with his cosmetic results. Although several studies indicate the feasibility and efficacy of synthetic permanent mesh repair, the concerns of mesh infection, erosion, and ostomy obstruction still persist. The authors suggest parietalizing the bowel and using a biologic mesh.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 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 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 45%
Unspecified 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,633,035
of 34,517,289 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Surgery
#1,666
of 7,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,441
of 150,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Surgery
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,517,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,547 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 150,567 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 32 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 56% of its contemporaries.