↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasm: efficacy and safety study to guide future practice

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasm: efficacy and safety study to guide future practice
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5986-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wengang Zhang, Yaqi Zhai, Ningli Chai, Enqiang Linghu, Zhongsheng Lu, Huikai Li, Xiuxue Feng

Abstract

ESTD and ESD are currently the two primary treatment options for superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasm (SESCN) in China. However, in larger cases, ESD proves to be technically challenging and time saving, whereas ESTD exhibits promising efficacy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for large SESCN. A total of 150 patients with solitary large SESCN that underwent either ESTD (n = 52) or ESD (n = 98) between August 2011 and June 2016 were included in this study. Both efficacy and safety clinical data were collected and analyzed. All of the 150 patients were found to successfully undergo ESTD or ESD with 92.68 ± 67.96 (mean ± SD) min. The specimen area was measured to be 13.79 ± 7.44 (mean ± SD) cm2 and the dissection speed was 17.99 ± 10.40 (mean ± SD) mm2/min. En bloc resection and R0 resection were achieved in 91.33% (137/150) and 86.00% (129/150) of the cases, respectively. A total of 8.67% (13/150) were found to have intra-operative adverse events. Based on statistical analysis, ESTD was found to have a higher dissection speed and a similar adverse event rate compared with ESD. Moreover, a long operation time was found to be an independent risk factor for intra-operative adverse events. ESTD and ESD both were found to be effective and safe treatment options for the treatment of large SESCN. ESTD appeared to improve operation efficacy, which was reflected in a higher dissection speed compared with ESD. We also demonstrate that long operation times should be avoided as much as possible in order to reduce intra-operative adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Computer Science 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,087,536
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,123
of 6,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#231,228
of 440,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#85
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 440,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.