| Title |
Role of laparoscopic enucleation in the treatment of pancreatic lesions: case series and case-matched analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-016-5233-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mushegh A. Sahakyan, Bård Ingvald Røsok, Airazat M. Kazaryan, Leonid Barkhatov, Sven-Petter Haugvik, Åsmund Avdem Fretland, Dejan Ignjatovic, Knut Jørgen Labori, Bjørn Edwin |
| Abstract |
Previous studies report successful application of laparoscopic pancreatic enucleation (LPE). However, the evidence is limited to small series. This study aimed to evaluate the indications, technique and outcome of LPE at a tertiary care institution. Between February 1998 and April 2016, 45 consecutive LPEs were performed at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet. Twenty-four (53.3 %) patients subjected to right-sided LPE (RLPE) were compared with 21 (46.7 %) patients who had undergone left-sided LPE (LLPE). A case-matched analysis (1:2) was performed to compare the outcomes following LLPE and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). Patient demographics, BMI, ASA score and pathological characteristics were similar between the RLPE and LLPE groups. Operative time was slightly longer for RLPE [123 (53-320) vs 102 (50-373) min, P = 0.09]. The rates of severe morbidity (≥Accordion grade III) and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grades B/C) were comparable, although with a trend for higher rate of complications following LLPE (16.7 vs 33.3 %; P = 0.19 and 20.8 vs 33.3 %, P = 0.34, respectively). The hospital stay was similar between RLPE and LLPE [5 (2-80) vs 7 (2-52), P = 0.49]. A case-matched analysis demonstrated shorter operating time [145 (90-350) vs 103 (50-233) min, P = 0.02], but higher readmission rate following LLPE (25 vs 3.1 %, P = 0.037). LLPE seems to be associated with a higher risk of postoperative morbidity and readmission rates than LDP. RLPE is a feasible, safe approach and a reasonable alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy in selected patients with pancreatic lesions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 33% |
| Colombia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 19% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 52% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,344,573
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,280
of 6,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,324
of 322,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#85
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.