↓ Skip to main content

Rectal perforation at the time of vaginal mesh placement and subsequent abdominal mesh removal

Overview of attention for article published in International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, April 2015
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 (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Rectal perforation at the time of vaginal mesh placement and subsequent abdominal mesh removal
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00192-015-2683-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Lang, Sallie Oliphant, Jason Mizell, Becca Austin, Susan Barr

Abstract

We present an uncommon complication of vaginally placed synthetic prolapse mesh and demonstrate repair of rectal mesh perforation. A 41-year-old was referred with multiple complaints following rectocele repair using a posterior vaginal mesh kit 5 months earlier. In the immediate postoperative period, she experienced severe pain radiating down her right leg, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, dyschezia, diarrhea, and new onset fecal incontinence. Our examination revealed tight, tender mesh arms palpable at the vaginal apex with no evidence of erosion or rectovaginal fistula. Rectal examination revealed intrarectal mesh traversing the rectal lumen 6 cm from the anal verge. Pelvic MRI demonstrated a possible rectovaginal fistula with inflammation surrounding the right sciatic nerve plexus. The patient underwent exploratory laparotomy, removal of the mesh, primary repair of two perforating rectal defects and diverting loop ileostomy. Postoperatively she experienced immediate improvement in pain and later underwent successful take-down of her ileostomy. She did well with improvement of bowel function, continence of feces, improvement of pain, and no recurrence of prolapse. Our video shows an abdominal approach for mesh removal and repair of rectal mesh injury occurring from vaginal mesh placement. We discuss the rationale for the abdominal approach and review techniques for proper placement of posterior vaginal mesh.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Postgraduate 3 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Researcher 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 69%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,713,336
of 12,253,439 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#202
of 1,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,215
of 222,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,253,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 222,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.