↓ Skip to main content

Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, March 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 (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Visualization of endometriosis: comparative study of 3-dimensional robotic and 2-dimensional laparoscopic endoscopes
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11701-017-0686-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cindy Mosbrucker, Anita Somani, John Dulemba

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to compare results of using the robotic 3D/HD scope and the 2D/HD laparoscope for visual detection of histologically confirmed endometriosis. Three surgeons from different practices enrolled premenopausal women ≥18 years who had elected to undergo robotic-assisted endometriosis resection. Patients were randomized to receive 2D/HD laparoscopic visualization either before or after 3D/HD robotic visualization. Resections then proceeded robotically. The number of histologically confirmed lesions overall and by abdomino-pelvic location, appearance and size was compared by scope type used. During the study, 598 lesions were visualized in 98 patients. Average number of lesions per patient using either scope was 6.1. Mean age was 31 years and 77% were disease stage I/II. On histopathology, 58.4% of lesions resected were consistent with endometriosis. All (100%) of these lesions were detected using the robotic 3D/HD scope and 77.9% using the 2D/HD laparoscope (p < 0.001). Compared to laparoscopic, robotic visualization resulted in detection of more confirmed lesions in all anatomic locations and for most appearances, including the cul-de-sac (100 vs. 79%), atypical appearance (100 vs. 71.3%) and width <5 mm (100 vs. 62%), p's < 0.001). Logistic regression indicated that use of the 3D/HD robotic scope was independently associated with 2.36 times the likelihood (95% CI 1.20, 4.66; p = 0.014) of detecting a confirmed lesion, compared to the 2D/HD laparoscope. Large-scale, long-term studies are needed to substantiate these findings in multiple practice settings and to determine whether 3D robotic versus 2D laparoscopic resection has a beneficial impact on symptomatology, recurrence and fertility outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 13 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,003,483
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#68
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,882
of 310,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 688 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 310,726 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.