| Title |
Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-007-9660-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. W. Eom, J.-Y. Jang, S. E. Lee, H.-S. Han, Y.-S. Yoon, S.-W. Kim |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic disease has gained increasing popularity. A laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is technically simple and has been adopted as the preferred method in many centers. However, there is limited information on the outcomes of the laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and to evaluate its efficacy compared with open distal pancreatectomy. From February 1995 to March 2006, 31 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 167 patients underwent open distal pancreatectomy at Seoul National University Hospital and Bundang Seoul National University Hospital. A case-control design was used with 2:1 matching to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery. Among 167 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy, 62 patients whose age, gender, and pathology were similar to those of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were selected for this study. The operation time, intraoperative transfusion requirements, duration of postoperative hospitalization, complications, mortality, recurrence, and hospital charges were analyzed. There were no significant differences in operation time, rate of intraoperative transfusions, complications, recurrence, or mortality between the two groups. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with a statistically significant shorter hospital stay (11.5 days vs 13.5 days; p = 0.049), but with more expensive hospital charges than open distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.01). Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a clinically safe and effective procedure for benign and borderline pancreatic tumors. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Romania | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 58% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,536,586
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,702
of 6,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,249
of 156,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#7
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 156,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.