↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5414-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bjørn Edwin, Mushegh A. Sahakyan, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Marc G. Besselink, Marco Braga, Jean-Michel Fabre, Laureano Fernández-Cruz, Brice Gayet, Song Cheol Kim, Igor E. Khatkov, EAES Consensus Conference Study Group

Abstract

Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients. An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey. LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe. LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 58%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,447,424
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#675
of 6,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,177
of 454,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#16
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,087 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 454,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.