↓ Skip to main content

A large mural nodule in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma of the pancreas: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Case Reports, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
A large mural nodule in branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma of the pancreas: a case report
Published in
Surgical Case Reports, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40792-014-0009-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koichiro Haruki, Shigeki Wakiyama, Yasuro Futagawa, Hiroaki Shiba, Takeyuki Misawa, Katsuhiko Yanaga

Abstract

Indications for resection of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) remain controversial because of their low tendency to be malignant. Surgical resection should be recommended if any factors indicating malignancy are present. However, preoperative differentiation between benign and malignant tumors is very difficult, especially in cases of branch duct IPMNs. We herein report a case of branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous adenoma (IPMA) of the pancreas with a large mural nodule of 25 mm. A 74-year-old woman was admitted for examination and treatment for a cystic tumor in the head of the pancreas. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and computed tomography showed a cystic lesion, 50 mm in diameter, with an irregular mural nodule in the pancreatic head. Endoscopic ultrasonography demonstrated a multicystic tumor connected with the main pancreatic duct (MPD). The mural nodule had a diameter of 18 mm, and the MPD had a slight dilation of 6 mm. These findings suggested a high potential for malignancy. The patient underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy with lymph node dissection. The excised pancreas showed multiple cysts located in the branch pancreatic duct with a maximum diameter of 75 mm. The mural nodule had a maximum diameter of 25 mm. The tumor was diagnosed as an IPMA by pathological examination. After operation, the patient was discharged without any complications. Two years after resection, the patient remains in remission with no evidence of tumor recurrence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Student > Master 1 25%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Case Reports
#239
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,443
of 255,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Case Reports
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 255,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.