| Title |
How does the robot affect outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-011-1994-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abhijit Shaligram, Jayaraj Unnirevi, Anton Simorov, Vishal M. Kothari, Dmitry Oleynikov |
| Abstract |
Robotic techniques are routinely used in urological and gynecological procedures; however, their role in general surgical procedures is limited. A robotic technique has been successfully adopted for a minimally invasive Heller myotomy procedure for achalasia. This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes following open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 63 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 16% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 47% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,096,849
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,144
of 6,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,260
of 140,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,030 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 140,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.