↓ Skip to main content

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a single surgeon: findings of a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in Surgery Today, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by a single surgeon: findings of a randomized trial
Published in
Surgery Today, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00595-015-1182-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefano Partelli, Giuliano Barugola, Alberto Sartori, Stefano Crippa, Massimo Falconi, Giacomo Ruffo

Abstract

Traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (TLC) is performed widely; however, single-incision cholecystectomy (SILC) has been proposed as a better and less traumatic procedure. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized study, patients were randomized to undergo either elective SILC or TLC. The primary endpoint was the level of pain after surgery and the secondary endpoints were complications, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. A total of 59 patients were enrolled (SILC, n = 30; TLC, n = 29). The median operative time was longer for the SILC group (55 vs. 40 min; P < 0.0001). Patients in the SILC group had a lower median VAS pain score 4 h after surgery (20 mm for the TLC group vs. 15 mm for the SILC group). Complications were distributed equally. Twenty-eight of the 30 patients in the SILC group vs. 23 of the 29 patients in the TLC group were very satisfied with their operation (P = 0.032). The cosmetic results of SILC were better than those of TLC, with visible scars in 21 patients from the TLC group vs. 3 patients from the SILC group (P = 0.0001). We found SILC to be a safe, feasible, and adaptable surgical technique. The pain scores at 4 h were significantly better for SILC than for TLC.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 7 29%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
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 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,276,249
of 22,808,725 outputs
Outputs from Surgery Today
#665
of 992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,197
of 267,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgery Today
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,808,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 992 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.