| Title |
Prevention of adhesions in gynaecological surgery: the 2012 European field guideline
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gynecological Surgery, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10397-012-0764-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rudy Leon De Wilde, Hans Brölmann, Philippe Robert Koninckx, Per Lundorff, Adrian M. Lower, Arnaud Wattiez, Michal Mara, Markus Wallwiener |
| Abstract |
Postoperative adhesions have become the most common complication of open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery and a source of major concern because of their potentially dramatic consequences. The proposed guideline is the beginning of a major campaign to enhance the awareness of adhesions and to provide surgeons with a reference guide to adhesion prevention adapted to the conditions of their daily practice. The risk of postoperative adhesions should be systematically discussed with any patient scheduled for open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery prior to obtaining her informed consent. Surgeons should adopt a routine adhesion reduction strategy with good surgical technique. Anti-adhesion agents are an additional option, especially in procedures with a high risk of adhesion formation, such as ovarian, endometriosis and tubal surgery and myomectomy. We conclude that good surgical practice is paramount to reduce adhesion formation and that anti-adhesion agents may contribute to adhesion prevention in certain cases. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Ireland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 41% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,224,738
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Gynecological Surgery
#41
of 162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,131
of 170,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gynecological Surgery
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 162 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 170,818 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.