↓ Skip to main content

Salvage thoracic surgery in patients with lung cancer: potential indications and benefits

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Salvage thoracic surgery in patients with lung cancer: potential indications and benefits
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13019-018-0693-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erkan Kaba, Mehmet Oguzhan Ozyurtkan, Kemal Ayalp, Tugba Cosgun, Mazen Rasmi Alomari, Alper Toker

Abstract

To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of salvage lung resection and describe the possible indications and contraindications in patients with primary lung cancer. Thirty patients undergoing anatomical salvage lung resection were classified into three groups: GI, patients with progressive lung tumor despite definitive chemo- and/or radiotherapy; GII, patients who underwent emergency resection; and GIII, patients in whom neoadjuvant or definitive chemo- and/or radiotherapy was contraindicated because of severe comorbidities. The groups were compared based on, peri- and postoperative factors, and survival rates. The morbidity rate was 70%. Revision surgery was required in 23% of patients. Morbidity was affected by lower hematocrit and hemoglobin levels (P = 0.05). Mean hospital stay was 11 ± 4 days, which was longer in patients in whom complications developed (P = 0.0003). The in-hospital or 30-day mortality rate was 3%. Mean relapse-free survival and overall survivals were 14 ± 12 and 19 ± 13 months. Patients with progression of the persistent primary tumor after definitive chemo- and/or radiotherapy can undergo salvage lung resection with acceptable mortality and high morbidity rates, if the tumor is considered resectable. Other indications may be considered for salvage lung resection based on each patient's specific evaluation.

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 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 %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 7 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Unspecified 2 13%
Unknown 8 50%
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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,584,192
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#646
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,362
of 441,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 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 1,245 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 441,076 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.