↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of single-incision thoracoscopic surgery using a modified chest wall pulley for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a propensity score matching analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Surgery Today, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility of single-incision thoracoscopic surgery using a modified chest wall pulley for primary spontaneous pneumothorax: a propensity score matching analysis
Published in
Surgery Today, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00595-017-1483-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenji Tsuboshima, Machiko Nagata, Teppei Wakahara, Yasumi Matoba, Yoshimasa Maniwa

Abstract

Recently, single-incision thoracoscopic surgery (SITS) has been recognized as a favorable treatment choice for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) compared with conventional three-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). However, conventional SITS bullectomy often results in collisions with surgical devices. Therefore, we devised a method of SITS using a chest wall pulley for lung excision (PulLE) and modified PulLE (mPulLE) system, which substitutes threads to eliminate such collisions. We compared the mPulLE system with conventional procedures using propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for patient backgrounds. Using PSM, we evaluated the surgical results of 210 PSP patients who underwent VATS, including mPulLE (n = 23) and three-port VATS (n = 102), at our institution between January 2010 and August 2016. We selected 17 mPulLE cases and 17 three-port VATS. There were no marked differences between the groups in the patient backgrounds or surgical results. However, there was a significant difference between the mPulLE cases and the three-port VATS cases in the operative time (71.7 ± 15.7 vs. 85.9 ± 25.5 min, respectively, P = 0.0388) and the number of autosutures used (3.6 ± 1.2 vs. 4.5 ± 1.2, respectively, P = 0.0178). The surgical results of mPulLE in patients with PSP with multiple lesions were equivalent to those achieved with three-port VATS under the same conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Other 2 22%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 67%
Linguistics 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
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 29 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,448,386
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Surgery Today
#671
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,944
of 309,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgery Today
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 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 994 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. 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 309,460 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 17 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.