↓ Skip to main content

Robotic treatment of a type 2 calyceal diverticulum in a child: is suture closure and marsupialisation enough for a good outcome?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Robotic treatment of a type 2 calyceal diverticulum in a child: is suture closure and marsupialisation enough for a good outcome?
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11701-017-0758-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Sripathi, Aparajita Mitra, Rajiv L. Padankatti, T. Ganesan

Abstract

Calyceal diverticula in children are rare and 20% eventually become symptomatic. Following the use of laparoscopic or endoscopic treatments, 85% of children report symptomatic relief. However, complete radiological resolution is seen only in three-fourths of the laparoscopic group and a quarter of those treated via endoscopy. Diathermy ablation of the lining and/or prolonged double J stenting has not altered this outcome. The robotic approach is superior to the other two techniques as the leak can be clearly identified and securely suture ligated. We believe that this is the third published report of the successful closure of a calyceal diverticulum in a child using robotic assistance. A ten-year-old boy presented with severe pain in the right flank and a palpable renal swelling. Retrograde injection of contrast outlined a large exophytic calyceal diverticulum (type 2) in the lower pole. Robotic assistance allowed precise suture closure of the neck as well as partial marsupialisation of the diverticulum. The child was discharged within 48 h and remains symptom free 18 months later. Calyceal diverticula are rare but technically challenging entities. We have shown a good outcome with only suture closure of the leak. Diathermy ablation of the lining and prolonged internal stenting were avoided.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Researcher 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 80%
Unknown 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,286,910
of 12,140,050 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#174
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,787
of 284,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,140,050 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 284,988 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.