| Title |
Day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-016-1518-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J.-L. Faucheron, B. Trilling, S. Barbois, P.-Y. Sage, P.-A. Waroquet, F. Reche |
| Abstract |
Ventral rectopexy to the promontory has become one of the most strongly advocated surgical treatments for patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse and deep enterocele. Despite its challenges, laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with or without robotic assistance for selected patients can be performed with relatively minimal patient trauma thus creating the potential for same-day discharge. The aim of this prospective case-controlled study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and cost of day case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with routine day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Between February 28, 2014 and March 3, 2015, 20 consecutive patients underwent day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse or deep enterocele at Michallon University Hospital, Grenoble. Patients were selected for day case surgery on the basis of motivation, favorable social circumstances, and general fitness. One out of every two patients underwent the robotic procedure (n = 10). Demographics, technical results, and costs were compared between both groups. Patients from both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and technical results. Patients operated on with the robot had significantly less pain (p = 0.045). Robotic rectopexy was associated with longer median operative time (94 vs 52.5 min, p < 0.001) and higher costs (9088 vs 3729 euros per procedure, p < 0.001) than laparoscopic rectopexy. Day case robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe, but results in longer operative time and higher costs than classical laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse and enterocele. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
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 24 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,429,017
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#688
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,164
of 342,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 342,741 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.