↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Using the Lateral Approach from Intercostal Ports in Segments VI, VII, and VIII

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic Liver Resection Using the Lateral Approach from Intercostal Ports in Segments VI, VII, and VIII
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11605-017-3516-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshihiro Inoue, Yusuke Suzuki, Kensuke Fujii, Nao Kawaguchi, Masatsugu Ishii, Shinsuke Masubuchi, Masashi Yamamoto, Fumitoshi Hirokawa, Michihiro Hayashi, Kazuhisa Uchiyama

Abstract

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been developed as a minimally invasive surgery. However, challenges such as difficulty securing visibility and limited control of forceps make it difficult to complete LLR in hepatic segments VI, VII, and VIII. To overcome these challenges, we devised a surgical technique using intercostal ports. We termed this approach the lateral approach. This work describes our experience performing LLR using this approach and discusses the safety and effectiveness of this approach. Between April 2011 and December 2016, data from 91 patients who underwent LLR with or without the intercostal port at a single institution were retrospectively analyzed regarding surgical outcomes, safety, and utility. LLR was performed for 32 patients with the intercostal port and for 59 patients without the intercostal port. The conversion rates to open surgery with and without intercostal ports were 3.1 and 25.4% (P = 0.008). In hepatic segments VII and VIII, the rates of conversion to open surgery were significantly lower for cases involving intercostal ports (6.7 vs. 42.9 and 0 vs. 38.9%; P = 0.035 and 0026, respectively); however, there were no differences in hepatic segment VI (0 vs. 7.4%; P = 0.563). There were no differences in operative time, blood loss volume, surgical margin, curative resection rate, or postoperative complication rate for LLR in all segments (VI, VII, and VIII). No adverse events due to placement of the intercostal port were observed in this set of patients. LLR using the lateral approach and intercostal ports for hepatic segments VII and VIII resulted in a significant decrease in conversion rates to open surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
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 %
Researcher 5 38%
Professor 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,737,737
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#1,503
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,165
of 327,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 327,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.