| Title |
Comparison of pure laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy by multivariate analysis: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5714-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hwui-Dong Cho, Ki-Hun Kim, Shin Hwang, Chul-Soo Ahn, Deok-Bog Moon, Tae-Yong Ha, Gi-Won Song, Dong-Hwan Jung, Gil-Chun Park, Sung-Gyu Lee |
| Abstract |
To compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) versus open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) for benign and malignant conditions using multivariate analysis. All consecutive cases of LLH and OLH between October 2007 and December 2013 in a tertiary referral hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. All surgical procedures were performed by one surgeon. The LLH and OLH groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, preoperative data, clinical perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics in patients with malignancy. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors associated with severe complications was then performed. The LLH group (n = 62) had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay than the OLH group (n = 118) (9.53 ± 3.30 vs 14.88 ± 11.36 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the OLH group had >4 times the risk of the LLH group in terms of developing severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) (odds ratio 4.294, 95% confidence intervals 1.165-15.832, p = 0.029). LLH was a safe and feasible procedure for selected patients. LLH required shorter hospital stay and resulted in less operative blood loss. Multivariate analysis revealed that LLH was associated with a lower risk of severe complications compared to OLH. The authors suggest that LLH could be a reasonable treatment option for selected patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 35% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
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 11 March 2019.
All research outputs
#14,427,171
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,937
of 6,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,969
of 318,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#76
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,601 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 54% 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 318,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.