↓ Skip to main content

Tailored Approach in Inguinal Hernia Repair – Decision Tree Based on the Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Tailored Approach in Inguinal Hernia Repair – Decision Tree Based on the Guidelines
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2014.00020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ferdinand Köckerling, Christine Schug-Pass

Abstract

The endoscopic procedures TEP and TAPP and the open techniques Lichtenstein, Plug and Patch, and PHS currently represent the gold standard in inguinal hernia repair recommended in the guidelines of the European Hernia Society, the International Endohernia Society, and the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery. Eighty-two percent of experienced hernia surgeons use the "tailored approach," the differentiated use of the several inguinal hernia repair techniques depending on the findings of the patient, trying to minimize the risks. The following differential therapeutic situations must be distinguished in inguinal hernia repair: unilateral in men, unilateral in women, bilateral, scrotal, after previous pelvic and lower abdominal surgery, no general anesthesia possible, recurrence, and emergency surgery. Evidence-based guidelines and consensus conferences of experts give recommendations for the best approach in the individual situation of a patient. This review tries to summarize the recommendations of the various guidelines and to transfer them into a practical decision tree for the daily work of surgeons performing inguinal hernia repair.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 71%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,770,681
of 24,917,903 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#296
of 3,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,656
of 233,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,917,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,804 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 233,885 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.