↓ Skip to main content

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open middle pancreatectomy: short-term results of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open middle pancreatectomy: short-term results of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5046-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shi Chen, Qian Zhan, Jia-bin Jin, Zhi-chong Wu, Yuan Shi, Dong-feng Cheng, Hao Chen, Xia-xing Deng, Bai-yong Shen, Cheng-hong Peng, Hong-wei Li

Abstract

This first prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare short-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic middle pancreatectomy (RA-MP) with open middle pancreatectomy (OMP). RA-MP is a novel minimally invasive surgical technique for benign or borderline tumors in the pancreatic neck or body. Its short-term effectiveness and safety remain unknown, compared to OMP. Patients eligible for MP from August 2011 to November 2015 were randomized into the RA-MP or OMP group. The primary endpoint was length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were intraoperative parameters, and postoperative and recovery variables. A total of 100 patients were included into the study to analyze primary and secondary endpoints. Demographic characteristics and pathological parameters were similar in both groups. Furthermore, LOS was significantly shorter (15.6 vs. 21.7 days, P = 0.002), median operative time was reduced (160 vs. 193 min, P = 0.002), median blood loss was lower (50 vs. 200 mL, P < 0.001), rate of clinical postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) was lower (18 vs. 36.0 %, P = 0.043), nutritional status recovery was better, off-bed return to activity was expedited (3.1 vs. 4.6 days, P < 0.001), and resumption of bowel movement was faster (3.5 vs. 5.0 days, P < 0.001) in the RA-MP group, compared to the OMP group. RA-MP was associated with significantly shorter LOS, reduced operative time, blood loss and clinical POPF rate, and expedited postoperative recovery, compared to OMP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 20%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Master 2 10%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Computer Science 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 7 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,262,049
of 12,229,156 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#758
of 3,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,445
of 266,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#40
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,229,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,571 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 266,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.