↓ Skip to main content

Conversion of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictors and Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Conversion of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy: Predictors and Outcomes
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, August 2017
DOI 10.1245/s10434-017-6062-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ibrahim Nassour, Sam C. Wang, Matthew R. Porembka, Mathew M. Augustine, Adam C. Yopp, John C. Mansour, Rebecca M. Minter, Michael A. Choti, Patricio M. Polanco

Abstract

Data on the risk factors for conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and its effect on postoperative outcomes are limited. This retrospective study used the pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to compare MIDP requiring unplanned conversion with completed MIDP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Of the 2926 cases identified in this study, 48.8% had ODP, 42.8% had MIDP, and 7.9% had conversion to MIDP. The conversion rate was 15.3% overall, 17.3% for laparoscopic surgery, and 8.5% for robotic surgery (p < 0.001). The risk factors associated with conversion were higher body mass index (BMI), low preoperative albumin level, a current smoking habit, and malignant T3/T4 disease or chronic pancreatitis compared with benign tumor smaller than 5 cm. A robotic approach was associated with a lower adjusted conversion rate than laparoscopy (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.52). After adjustment, conversion was associated with a higher overall complication rate than MIDP (OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.35-2.66) or ODP (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.00-1.98). Chronic pancreatitis, large malignant tumors, higher BMI, lower serum albumin, and a current smoking habit were shown to be independent risk factors for conversion during MIDP. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate than laparoscopic MIDP. Conversion of MIDP was associated with a higher overall complication rate than completed MIDP or ODP. Adequate patient selection for MIDP may prevent conversion and associated increased morbidity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Other 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 April 2023.
All research outputs
#8,062,591
of 25,802,847 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,804
of 7,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,547
of 325,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#61
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,802,847 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 325,339 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.