↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of Incisional Hernias after Open Abdomen Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Prevention of Incisional Hernias after Open Abdomen Treatment
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederik Berrevoet

Abstract

Management of a patient with an open abdomen is difficult, and the primary closure of the fascial edges is essential to obtain the best patient outcome, regardless of the initial etiology of the open abdomen. The use of temporary abdominal closure devices is nowadays the gold standard to have the highest closure rates with mesh-mediated fascial traction as the proposed standard of care. However, the incidence of incisional hernias, although much more controlled than when leaving an abdomen open, is high and reaches up to 65%. As shown for other high-risk patient subgroups, such as obese patients, patients with an abdominal aneurysm, and patients with former -ostomy sites, the prevention of incisional hernias might be key to further optimize patient outcomes after open abdomen treatment. In this overview, current available modalities to decrease the incidence of incisional hernia are discussed. Most of these preventive options have been shown effective in giant ventral hernia repair and might work effectively in this patient cohort with open abdomen as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Master 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 35 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,927,767
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#181
of 3,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,622
of 334,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,747 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 334,938 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.