| Title |
Totally robotic single docking low anterior resection for rectal cancer: pearls and pitfalls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-017-1709-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. W. T. Toh, A. Zakaria, I. Yang, S. H. Kim |
| Abstract |
Total robotic resection of mid- and low rectal cancers confers technical advantages within the confines of the pelvis and allows difficult rectal cancer cases to be performed efficiently with less risk of conversion to open. To maximize the advantage of robotic surgery, we utilize the technique of single docking totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer for both the Da Vinci Si and Xi Surgical Systems. All steps are performed robotically, with the surgery divided into two phases. The first phase consists of inferior mesenteric artery and vein ligation, sigmoid and descending colon mobilization and splenic flexure takedown. Phase two is rectal dissection and pelvic total mesorectal excision. In this article, which is complemented by a video, we describe in detail our surgical technique for totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer using a standardized 'medial to lateral' approach with emphasis on the pearls and pitfalls of this surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 8 | 21% |
| United States | 5 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 11% |
| Italy | 2 | 5% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 3% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 3% |
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Greece | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 11% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 59% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,699,627
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#148
of 1,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,642
of 331,547 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 331,547 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 64% of its contemporaries.