↓ Skip to main content

Anal Sphincter Augmentation Using Biological Material

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Anal Sphincter Augmentation Using Biological Material
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00060
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasra N. Alam, Sunil K. Narang, Ferdinand Köckerling, Ian R. Daniels, Neil J. Smart

Abstract

The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the use of biological materials in the augmentation of the anal sphincter either as part of an overlapping sphincter repair (OSR) or anal bulking procedure. A systematic search of PubMed was conducted using the search terms "anal bulking agents," "anal sphincter repair," or "overlapping sphincter repair." Five studies using biological material as part of an overlapping sphincter repair (OSR) or as an anal bulking agent were identified. 122 patients underwent anal bulking with a biological material. Anorectal physiology was conducted in 27 patients and demonstrated deterioration in maximum resting pressure, and no significant change in maximum squeeze increment. Quality of life scores (QoLs) demonstrated improvements at 6 weeks and 6 months, but this had deteriorated at 12 months of follow up. Biological material was used in 23 patients to carry out an anal encirclement procedure. Improvements in QoLs were observed in patients undergoing OSR as well as anal encirclement using biological material. Incontinence episodes decreased to an average of one per week from 8 to 10 preoperatively. Sphincter encirclement with biological material has demonstrated improvements in continence and QoLs in the short term compared to traditional repair alone. Long-term studies are necessary to determine if this effect is sustained. As an anal bulking agent the benefits are short-term.

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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 23%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Design 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
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 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,915
of 22,833,393 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,914
of 386,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,833,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,868 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 386,693 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.