↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of treatment options for rectosigmoid cancer: single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00464-016-5244-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruoyan Liu, Yanan Wang, Ze Zhang, Tingting Li, Hao Liu, Liying Zhao, Haijun Deng, Guoxin Li

Abstract

The advantages of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) for rectosigmoid cancer treatment have been disputed. This study evaluated the outcomes of RPLS compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for rectosigmoid cancer. Data from 211 patients who underwent a selective sigmoidectomy or anterior resection from August 2011 to June 2014 at a single institution were collected and analyzed via propensity score matching. Operative outcomes, inflammatory responses, pain intensity, oncologic outcomes, quality of life, and cosmetic results were compared between groups. After matching, 96 patients (48 CLS and 48 RPLS) were evaluated. Sixteen RPLS cases underwent single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and 32 underwent single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS + 1). Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the RPLS and the CLS groups. Morbidity, pathologic outcomes, and 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival rates were also comparable between the 2 groups. Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group had a shorter total incision length (p < 0.001); shorter time to liquid diet (p = 0.027), ambulation (p = 0.026), and discharge (p < 0.001); and lower visual analogue scale scores during mobilization at postoperative days 3-5 (p < 0.05). The total operation times, C-reactive protein levels at 24 h and 96 h, and interleukin-6 levels at 24 h postoperatively were significantly lower in the SILS + 1 group than those in the CLS and SILS groups (p < 0.05). Compared with the CLS group, the RPLS group showed better social functioning at 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.011). The SILS and SILS + 1 groups showed similar cosmetic results, and both groups showed better results than the CLS group (p < 0.001). RPLS for rectosigmoid cancer is feasible, with short-term safety and long-term oncological safety comparable to that of CLS. Better cosmesis and accelerated recovery can be expected. SILS + 1 is a better choice than CLS or SILS for rectosigmoid cancer because it minimizes invasiveness and reduces technical difficulties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Librarian 5 13%
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Psychology 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,263,434
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,205
of 6,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,865
of 319,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#48
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 319,996 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 142 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 66% of its contemporaries.