↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Powered and Tissue-Specific Endoscopic Stapling Technology on Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Lobectomy Procedures: A Retrospective, Observational Study

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,164)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
48 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Impact of Powered and Tissue-Specific Endoscopic Stapling Technology on Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Lobectomy Procedures: A Retrospective, Observational Study
Published in
Advances in Therapy, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12325-018-0679-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel L. Miller, Sanjoy Roy, Edmund S. Kassis, Sashi Yadalam, Sushama Ramisetti, Stephen S. Johnston

Abstract

Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lung resections are complex procedures with a critical role played by endoscopic staplers in the transection of vessels, bronchi, and lung tissue. This retrospective, observational study compared hospital resource use, costs, and complications of VATS lobectomy procedures for whom powered versus manual endoscopic surgical staplers were used. Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing elective VATS lobectomy during an inpatient admission from January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2016 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database (first admission = index admission). Use of either powered or manual endoscopic staplers during the index admission was identified from hospital administrative records. Multivariable regression analyses adjusting for patient, hospital, and provider characteristics and hospital-level clustering were carried out to compare the following outcomes between the powered and manual stapler groups: hospital length of stay (LOS), operating room time (ORT), hospital costs, complications (bleeding and/or transfusions, air leak complications, pneumonia, and infection), discharge status, and 30-, 60-, and 90-day all-cause readmissions. The powered and manual stapler groups comprised 659 patients (mean age 66.1 years; 53.6% female) and 3100 patients (mean age 66.7 years; 54.8% female), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, the powered stapler group had shorter LOS (4.9 vs. 5.9 days, P < 0.001), lower total hospital costs ($23,841 vs. $26,052, P = 0.009), and lower rates of combined hemostasis complications (bleeding and/or transfusions; 8.5% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001) and transfusions (5.4% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.002), compared with the manual stapler group. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the study groups. Similar trends were observed in subanalyses comparing devices across predominant manufacturers in each group, and in subanalyses of patients with comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this analysis of VATS lobectomy procedures, powered staplers were associated with significant benefits with respect to selected types of hospital resource use, costs, and clinical outcomes when compared with manual staplers. Johnson & Johnson.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 36%
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Master 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 27%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Computer Science 1 9%
Other 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 379. 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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#26,621
of 13,079,903 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#5
of 1,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,431
of 267,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#1
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,079,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 267,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.