↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique in patients with complicated and noncomplicated acute appendicitis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique in patients with complicated and noncomplicated acute appendicitis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s88479
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nurettin Ay, Bulent Dinç, Vahhac Alp, Şafak Kaya, Utkan Sevük

Abstract

In our study we aimed to compare laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique (base of the appendix was ligated with 20 cm of 2.0 silk) in patients with complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) and noncomplicated acute appendicitis. Ninety patients (female/male: 40/50, age ranging from 16 to 60 years, median age and interquartile range [IQR]: 25 [20; 32] years) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were included in the study. The patients were evaluated for the type of acute appendicitis, duration of operation, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. The number of cases diagnosed as CAA was 28 (31.1%), and the number of noncomplicated cases was 62 (68.9%). We found that there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates between complicated and noncomplicated appendicitis cases. Incision site infection was seen in seven cases (7.8%) and ileus was seen in two cases (2.2%). Bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, and appendix stump leakage were not observed in any of the cases. Median and IQR duration of operation were 42 (35; 52) minutes and median and IQR duration of hospital stay were detected as 2 (1; 2) (range 1-10) days. Laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique may be a safe, effective, and reliable technique as the materials needed for closing the appendix stumps are easily available for both CAA cases and noncomplicated cases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Paraguay 1 7%
Switzerland 1 7%
Unknown 13 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 27%
Other 3 20%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 60%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#925
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,170
of 276,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#42
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.