↓ Skip to main content

Laparoscopy as a useful selection tool for patients with prior surgery and peritoneal metastases suitable for multimodality treatment strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopy as a useful selection tool for patients with prior surgery and peritoneal metastases suitable for multimodality treatment strategies
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5923-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp von Breitenbuch, Thomas Boerner, Tonia Jeiter, Pompiliu Piso, Hans J. Schlitt

Abstract

Complete macroscopic cytoreduction in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is the basic requirement for long-term survival. Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) can be difficult and of limited clinical value secondary to postoperative or tumor-induced adhesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of DL in patients with prior surgery and PC. The database of the surgical department of the University Medical Center of Regensburg was reviewed (9/2010-10/2014) selecting for DL in patients with PC. The operative report had a standardized format allowing for the determination of the extent of the intra-abdominal visible area and the extent of tumor on the surface of the small intestine. For the classification we used our own developed score. DL was performed in 102 patients. The complete abdominal cavity was evaluable in 48%. At least two quadrants and the largest part of the small intestine could be assessed in 70%. 37% of the patients had massive tumor manifestation on the small intestine or its mesentery. PCI (Peritoneal Cancer Index) could not be calculated in 71% of the patients due to incomplete visualization of the abdominal cavity and/or multiple tumor manifestations on the small intestine. 54% of patients were classified as non-resectable and 85% who seemed suitable for cytoreductive surgery underwent a CCR-0 resection and HIPEC. In spite of prior surgery and PC, DL is frequently possible and a useful tool to define the extent of tumor spread. Lots of patients can be prevented from needless open laparotomy. The extent of tumor involvement of the small intestine seems to be more relevant than calculation of the PCI to determine the potential for complete resection. Therefore, in the presence of adhesions, inspection of the complete abdominal cavity does not offer added clinical benefit and further adhesiolysis can be avoided.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 10 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Unknown 10 42%
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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,578,649
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,794
of 6,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,565
of 440,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#150
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,102 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 440,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 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.