↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Biological Meshes in Diaphragmatic Defects – An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
The Use of Biological Meshes in Diaphragmatic Defects – An Evidence-Based Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stavros A. Antoniou, Rudolph Pointner, Frank-Alexander Granderath, Ferdinand Köckerling

Abstract

The widespread use of meshes for hiatal hernia repair has emerged in the era of laparoscopic surgery, although sporadic cases of mesh augmentation of traumatic diaphragmatic rupture have been reported. The indications for biologic meshes in diaphragmatic repair are ill defined. This systematic review aims to investigate the available evidence on the role of biologic meshes in diaphragmatic rupture and hiatal hernia repair. Limited data from sporadic case reports and case series have demonstrated that repair of traumatic diaphragmatic rupture with biologic mesh is safe technique in both the acute or chronic setting. High level evidence demonstrates short-term benefits of biologic mesh augmentation in hiatal hernia repair over primary repair, although adequate long-term data are not currently available. Long-term follow-up data suggest no benefit of hiatal hernia repair using porcine small intestine submucosa over suture repair. The effectiveness of different biologic mesh materials on hernia recurrence requires further investigation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 17%
Other 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 24%
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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,717
of 283,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 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 2,866 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 283,225 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 21 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.