| Title |
Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgery Today, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00595-015-1266-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomohiro Yamaguchi, Yusuke Kinugasa, Akio Shiomi, Hiroyuki Tomioka, Hiroyasu Kagawa, Yushi Yamakawa |
| Abstract |
Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of RALS for rectal cancer by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Between April, 2010 and April, 2015, a total of 974 patients underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer. After the exclusion of those who underwent open surgery, high anterior resection, lateral lymph node dissection, or multiple resection, 442 patients were enrolled in this study, including 203 who underwent RALS and 239 who underwent CLS. We compared the short-term outcomes of these two groups. There was no case of conversion to open surgery in the RALS group, but 8 (3.3 %) cases in the CLS group (p = 0.009). Operative time was not significantly different, but blood loss was significantly less in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The rate of urinary retention was significantly lower in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p = 0.018). The short-term outcomes in this series provide further evidence that RALS may be superior to CLS for rectal cancer. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,989
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Surgery Today
#451
of 993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,244
of 283,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgery Today
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 993 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 283,842 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.