| Title |
Georg Kelling (1866–1945): the root of modern day minimal invasive surgery. A forgotten legend?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, April 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-007-0372-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thoralf Schollmeyer, Ayodapo S. Soyinka, Manfred Schollmeyer, Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein |
| Abstract |
On 23 September 1901, at the 73rd meeting of the Society of German Natural Scientists and Physicians in Hamburg, following his lecture "On the inspection of the gullet and the stomach with flexible instruments", the surgeon and gastroenterologist Georg Kelling from Dresden performed a laparoscopy on a dog. He called this procedure coelioscopy. Kelling's ingenious idea to connect his oral insufflation device with the Fiedler trocar and the Nitze cystocope, led to the coelioscopy in 1901 and marked the hour of birth of laparoscopy. Until today, Georg Kelling has not experienced the appreciation he is entitled to. He is the forgotten pioneer of a method that today plays an important role in diagnostics and therapeutics. The present standard of endoscopy has confirmed the anticipations of Georg Kelling that he had hundred years ago. His name therefore deserves a fixed place in the history of medicine and especially in the history of endoscopy. Georg Kelling and his wife were killed during the heavy air raids on Dresden on 13 and 14 February 1945, but his vague footprints are still in the sands of medical history. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 85% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 26% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 41% |
| Engineering | 4 | 15% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#7,856,604
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#535
of 2,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,234
of 73,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 73,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.