↓ Skip to main content

Management of chronic pain after hernia repair

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 2,073)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
36 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
128 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.
Title
Management of chronic pain after hernia repair
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, April 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s127820
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristoffer Andresen, Jacob Rosenberg

Abstract

Chronic pain following inguinal hernia repair is a common problem and feared complication. Up to 16% of people experience chronic pain following the repair of a groin hernia. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of treatment strategies for patients with chronic pain following inguinal hernia repair based on best practice guidelines and current clinical routines. The optimal management of chronic pain following inguinal hernia surgery should begin with a thorough clinical examination to rule out other causes of chronic pain and to rule out a recurrence. A scaled approach to treatment is recommended. Initially, watchful waiting can be tried if it can be tolerated by the patient and then systemic painkillers, escalating to blocks, and surgery as the final option. Surgery should include mesh removal and triple neurectomy following anterior approaches or mesh and tack removal following a posterior approach. The diagnosis and treatment strategies should be performed by or discussed with experts in the field.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Master 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Researcher 7 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 55 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 57 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 285. 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 15 August 2023.
All research outputs
#133,733
of 26,737,129 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#22
of 2,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,061
of 348,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#3
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,737,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 348,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.