| Title |
Tips and Tricks for a Laparoscopic Approach to Paracaval Liver Segments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-018-6432-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
G. Fiorentini, F. Ratti, F. Cipriani, M. Catena, M. Paganelli, L. Aldrighetti |
| Abstract |
A dramatic spread of laparoscopic liver surgery has been experienced over the last years. The approach to paracaval liver segments 1 and 9 is still poorly described in literature, mainly due to its technical demands. The aim of this article was to introduce a safe and effective approach to paracaval liver segments through laparoscopy. A minimally invasive approach to resection of Segments 1 and 9 is presented, and an operative set-up is depicted. A step-by-step technique describing the inferior vena cava (IVC) with left and right hepatic venous junction exposure, segmental pedicle isolation, and parenchymal transection is shown through a video document. Postoperative courses were uneventful, and patients were discharged on postoperative day 3. The approach to paracaval liver segments requires accurate preoperative case selection, technical, surgical, and anesthesiological expertise in laparoscopic liver surgery, and adequate instrumentary. Paracaval segments of the liver can be approached safely through laparoscopy by teams with extensive expertise in the field of laparoscopic liver surgery; however, suspected malignant infiltration of the IVC or unclear preoperative anatomy still contraindicate this approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 2 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Romania | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 45% |
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 64% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,309,587
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,096
of 6,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,204
of 329,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#52
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 329,870 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.