↓ Skip to main content

Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Comparative, Prospective, Case–Control Study of Open versus Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty in Children with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction: Long-term Results
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisandro A. Piaggio, Juan P. Corbetta, Santiago Weller, Ricardo Augusto Dingevan, Víctor Duran, Javier Ruiz, Juan C. Lopez

Abstract

We compare open pyeloplasty (OP) versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in children in a multicenter, prospective, case-control study. From May 2007 to March 2009, a program was established at Hospital Garrahan, the reference center, to perform LP with a mentoring surgeon that would attend the institution once a month. Every new case of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) diagnosed in the reference institution was offered to participate in the study. If the patient was enrolled, it was scheduled for LP. The following patient diagnosed with UPJO was operated on with open technique and served as a case-control. In three other facilities, patients were only offered LP and had a matched control open case at the reference institution. The first end point of the study was patient recovery: analgesia requirement and length of hospitalization (LOH). The second end point of the study was resolution of UPJO in long-term follow-up for the two techniques. Demographic data, surgical time, perioperative complications, analgesia requirement, analgesia score during hospitalization, LOH, and outcome were recorded. Both groups received the same postoperative indications for pain control. Parents were asked to assess pain in their children every 4 h postoperatively and to complete a pain scale chart to which the nurses were blinded. Fifteen OP and 15 LP were compared. Groups were similar with regard to sex, age, weight, and laterality. Mean surgical time was longer in LP than in OP group (mean 188 versus 65 min) (p < 0.01). Hospitalization was shorter for LP group with a mean of 1.9 versus 2.5 days for OP group (p < 0.05). Postoperative analgesia requirement was significantly higher in the OP group with a mean use of morphine of 1.7 versus 0.06 mg/kg in the LP group (p < 0.05). Pain scores were similar in both the groups. At a mean follow-up of 58 months there were no failures. In this prospective comparative cohort, LP was a longer procedure than OP. Both procedures had the same efficacy and complication rates, but patients undergoing LP needed fewer narcotics for pain control and had a shorter hospitalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 62%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,328,118
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#2,075
of 6,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,541
of 420,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#32
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 420,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.