| Title |
Robotic transanal access surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-012-2581-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ovunc Bardakcioglu |
| Abstract |
Transanal use of laparoscopic instrumentation has been described in several case reports as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Both of these techniques have significant technical limitations due to anatomical constrictions. Robotic technology with articulating instruments has been effectively used in many areas with anatomic limitations similar to the intraluminal use within the rectum. We present the technique of a full-thickness transanal resection of a rectal polyp with endorectal suturing using a robotic platform. Larger case series and trials are needed to compare outcome and cost with TEM. Alternative robotic platforms and instrumentation may be further developed for different and more advanced indications of transanal access surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 22% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#5,582,408
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#980
of 6,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,747
of 278,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#11
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,009 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 278,934 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.