↓ Skip to main content

Innovation in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Reparation – Initial Experiences with the Parietex Progrip Laparoscopic™ – Mesh

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Innovation in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernia Reparation – Initial Experiences with the Parietex Progrip Laparoscopic™ – Mesh
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00028
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pavol Klobusicky, Peter Feyerherd

Abstract

The Laparoscopic TAPP (transabdominal pre-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair) - technique is becoming more widely and frequently used due to higher patient satisfaction and lower rates of both relapse and complications. The role of the fixation of the mesh is especially important in regard to the endoscopic technique. The fixation of mesh through penetrating techniques using staples, clips, or screws is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing a chronic post-herniotomy inguinal pain syndrome (CPIP). In order to answer the question "fixation or no fixation of the mesh," the use of self-adhesive mesh is an optimal compromise. With the authors own operative technique consisting also of a standard pre- and post-operative management, the self-adhesive mesh was proven to be extremely reliable. As no specific materials to fix the mesh were needed, the method was fast, simple, and economical. We could also reduce the incidences of chronic inguinal pain in our patient population by using the self-adhesive mesh, without the risk of an increased recurrence rate in the observation period.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 26%
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 25 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,417,643
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#918
of 2,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,533
of 263,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 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 2,857 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 263,898 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 22 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.