↓ Skip to main content

COMPARISON BETWEEN INGUINAL HERNIOTOMIES WITH AND WITHOUT INCISING EXTERNAL OBLIQUE APONEUROSIS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

Overview of attention for article published in ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
COMPARISON BETWEEN INGUINAL HERNIOTOMIES WITH AND WITHOUT INCISING EXTERNAL OBLIQUE APONEUROSIS: A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL
Published in
ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
DOI 10.1590/0102-6720201700030006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Inguinal herniotomy is the most common surgery performed by pediatric surgeons. To compare the results and complications between two conventional methods of pediatric inguinal herniotomy with and without incising external oblique aponeurosis in terms of recurrence of hernia and other complications. This one blinded clinical trial study was conducted on 800 patients with indirect inguinal hernia. Inclusion criterion was children with inguinal hernia. The first group underwent herniotomy without incising external oblique aponeurosis and second group herniotomy with incising external oblique aponeurosis. Recurrence of hernia and other complications including ileoinguinal nerve damage, hematoma, testicular atrophy, hydrocele, ischemic orchitis, and testicular ascent were evaluated. Recurrence and other complications with or without incising external oblique aponeurosis had no significant difference, exception made to hydrocele significantly differed between the two groups, higher in the incision group. Herniotomy without incising oblique aponeurosis can be appropriate choice and better than herniotomy with incising oblique aponeurosis. Children with inguinal herniotomy can be benefit without incising oblique aponeurosis, instead of more interventional traditional method.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 29 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 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 31%
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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#26,525,324
of 29,376,261 outputs
Outputs from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#203
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#372,653
of 430,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,376,261 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 315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. 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 430,372 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 26 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.