↓ Skip to main content

The application of surgical procedure manager (SPM): first experience with FESS

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
The application of surgical procedure manager (SPM): first experience with FESS
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00405-017-4658-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina Feige, Iris Gollnick, Pia Schmitz, Gero Strauss

Abstract

In our hypothesis, the newly developed program SPM (surgical procedure manager) will ensure successful standardization and efficiency of the FESS (functional endoscopic sinus surgery) and therefore make a decisive contribution in terms of economization and improvement of intraoperative quality. Between 27th March 2015 and 8th October 2015, data from 259 FESS procedures were collected using the SPM. The study took place at the surgical desk, an operating room in the ACQUA clinic in Leipzig, Germany. 233 FESS (90%) of the total FESS (n = 259, 100%) were conducted entirely with SPM. 26 SPM terminations (10%) of 259 FESS remain, which are classified as actual SPM terminations-when the surgeon intentionally stops the SPM. The maximum time slot decreased clearly from 1 h 39 min (period A) to 1 h 10 min (period B). A time reduction can also be seen with the minimum duration of 13.5 min compared to 11 min. The variability of the time slot also decreases since the standard deviation is reduced by 4.5 min. On the basis of available recordings it can be postulated that the application of SPM is suitable for standardization for FESS. Standardization by means of SPM and minimal development can be recognized over a period of time. The SPM makes it possible to transfer the general advantages of mechanization on a concrete FESS and do not influence the medical processes nor even restrict the medical freedom. The users are still entirely free in the implementation of the respective procedure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 23%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Computer Science 2 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,440,241
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#2,052
of 3,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,867
of 312,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,110 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 312,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.