↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors involving the appendiceal orifice

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors involving the appendiceal orifice
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5598-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomoaki Tashima, Ken Ohata, Kouichi Nonaka, Eiji Sakai, Yohei Minato, Hajime Horiuchi, Nobuyuki Matsuhashi

Abstract

Since the endoscopic resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) involving the appendiceal orifice remains technically difficult, such lesions are usually treated by surgical resection. However, with recent advances in endoscopic devices, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become feasible and may be safely performed even for lesions involving the appendiceal orifice. Therefore, in order to assess the validity of endoscopic treatment for such lesions, we retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of ESD. A total of 30 patients with LSTs extending to within 10 mm of the appendiceal orifice (Group AO) and 122 patients with cecal LSTs located away from the appendiceal orifice (Group C) who were treated between December 2011 and September 2015 were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. The indications for ESD were determined by the preoperative endoscopic diagnosis made on the basis of Kudo's pit pattern classification. Based on these preoperative endoscopic diagnoses, 8 of the 30 enrolled patients underwent surgical resection as the initial treatment, because the tumor showed deep invasion beyond the orifice and/or a VN pit pattern was visible. The treatment outcomes (en bloc R0 resection rates, tumor size, procedure time, and complication rates) were compared between the two groups. The sensitivity and specificity for the cancer diagnosis were 81.8 and 94.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the en bloc R0 resection rate between Group AO and Group C (90.9 vs. 95.9%, P = 0.23). Furthermore, there were also no differences in the mean tumor size (30.0 ± 20.8 vs. 34.9 ± 14.5 mm, P = 0.17) or mean OR time (55.0 ± 39.2 vs. 58.9 ± 48.2 min P = 0.72) between the two groups. One case from Group AO (4.5%) was complicated by a perforation, which was successfully managed endoscopically. Although proficiency in endoscopic techniques is required, our results indicate that LSTs involving the appendiceal orifice can be successfully treated by ESD.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 50%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%

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 05 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,356,853
of 12,253,439 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,104
of 3,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,503
of 342,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#100
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,253,439 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 3,581 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 342,141 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 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.