| Title |
Intracorporeal Traction of the Rectum with a Beaded Plastic Urinary Drainage Bag Hanger: Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Rectal Cancer Surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-017-4153-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sang Woo Lim, Hyeong Rok Kim, Young Jin Kim |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery with proper total mesorectal excision is a challenge for colorectal surgeons during trouble shooting. We used a beaded plastic urinary drainage bag hanger to encircle the rectum and clamp laparoscopic rectal transaction in this study. Sixty-three patients with rectal cancer underwent laparoscopic radical rectal resection with curative intent between February 2015 and December 2015. Plastic beaded form urinary Foley catheter bag hanger was inserted intracorporeally via right lower 12-mm trocar, encircling the rectal tube distal to the rectal lesion followed by fastening. Thirty patients in the rectal resection group (28 laparoscopic, 2 robotic-assisted) using the commercial beaded plastic hanger for Foley catheter drainage were compared to 33 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectal resection. Low anterior resection was performed for both groups. The Foley bag hanger group had less operation time (162.6 min vs. 187.3 min, p = 0.006) and fewer numbers of stapler cartilage (1.6 vs. 2.1, p = 0.001). Intracorporeal ligation of the rectum with a beaded plastic Foley catheter bag hanger could be used as a valuable method for rectal handling and transaction in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 2 | 50% |
| Egypt | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 42% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2017.
All research outputs
#13,330,650
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,529
of 4,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,198
of 317,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#42
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 317,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.