↓ Skip to main content

Reoperation for inguinal hernia recurrence in Ontario: a population-based study

Overview of attention for article published in Hernia, September 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 (#14 of 650)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 Mendeley
Title
Reoperation for inguinal hernia recurrence in Ontario: a population-based study
Published in
Hernia, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10029-018-1822-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. K. Ramjist, F. Dossa, T. A. Stukel, D. R. Urbach, L. Fu, N. N. Baxter

Abstract

Despite the frequency with which inguinal hernia repairs (IHR) are performed, the real-world comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic versus open repairs is not well established. We compared the rate of recurrent inguinal hernia after laparoscopic and open mesh procedures. We designed a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases including adult patients in Ontario, Canada, who underwent primary IHR from April 1, 2003 to December 31, 2012. Patients were followed to August 31, 2014. Our primary outcome was reoperation for recurrent IHR, with covariate adjustment using Cox proportional hazards modeling. We constructed separate models to evaluate the effect of surgeon caseload on recurrence rates. We identified 93,501 adults undergoing primary IHR (85.4% open with mesh and 14.6% laparoscopic) with a median follow-up of 5.5 years. The 5-year cumulative risk of recurrent IHR was 2.0% in the open group and 3.4% in the laparoscopic group. After adjusting for patient and surgeon factors, we found that patients who underwent laparoscopic repair had a higher risk of recurrent IHR than those who underwent open repair when annual surgeon volume in the preceding year was ≤25 technique-specific cases (HR 1.76; 95% CI 1.45-2.13) or 26-50 technique-specific cases (HR 1.78; 95% CI 1.08-2.93). Few high-volume laparoscopic surgeons (> 50 cases/year) could be identified. Laparoscopic IHR did not carry a higher risk of recurrence for patients whose surgeons had performed > 50 technique-specific cases in the preceding year (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.45-3.26). Laparoscopic IHR is generally associated with a higher risk of recurrence than open IHR. Though high-volume surgeons may be able to achieve equivalent results with laparoscopic and open techniques, few surgeons in our study population met this volume criterion for laparoscopic repairs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 67%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#567,052
of 13,601,924 outputs
Outputs from Hernia
#14
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,636
of 265,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hernia
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,601,924 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 265,391 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.