| Title |
Anorectal complications after robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5499-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Jen Kuo, James Chi-Yong Ngu, Yan-Jiun Huang, Yen-Kuang Lin, Chia-Che Chen, Yiu-Shun Tong, Szu-Chia Huang, Chia-Chen Hu, Shu-Hwa Tan |
| Abstract |
Robotic intersphincteric resection (ISR) has been introduced for sphincter-preservation in the treatment of low rectal cancer. However, many patients experience anorectal symptoms and defecatory dysfunction after ISR. This study aims to evaluate the anorectal complications that develop after ISR. The medical records of 108 patients who underwent robotic ISR at Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan between December 2011 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Photographic records of perineal conditions were documented at the following time intervals after surgery: 1 day, 2 weeks, 1, 2, 3 and 6 months. Clinical outcomes and treatment results were analysed. Eighty-five patients (78.7%) developed edematous hemorrhoids after surgery. These subsided at a median of 56 days after operation (range 23-89 days). Forty-six patients (42.6%) were found to have anal stenosis requiring anal dilatation. Sixteen patients (14.8%) had neorectal mucosal prolapse, which was noted to occur at an average of 98 days after surgery (range 41-162 days). Multivariate analysis showed that the occurrence of edematous hemorrhoids was associated with operating time (P = 0.043), and male gender was a significant risk factor for anal stenosis (P = 0.007). This is the first study reporting on the clinical outcomes of anorectal status after robotic ISR. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term effects of these anorectal complications. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Librarian | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,329,417
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,747
of 6,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,504
of 324,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#44
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,947 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 324,616 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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 69% of its contemporaries.