↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of cardial submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of cardial submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6206-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Du, Ningli Chai, Enqiang Linghu, Ying Gao, Zhenjuan Li, Longsong Li, Yaqi Zhai, Zhongsheng Lu, Jiangyun Meng, Ping Tang

Abstract

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is increasingly used for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer; however, endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) is still performed in many hospitals for its low-skill and experience requirements. This study aimed to compare STER with ESE for cardial SMTs. From March 2013 to February 2017, patients with cardial SMTs undergoing STER (n = 47) and ESE (n = 40) were retrospectively assessed. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and complication data were compared between STER and ESE groups. The 87 enrolled patients included 31 females and 56 males, aged 48.2 ± 9.8 years. Mean tumor size was 22.0 mm (range 5.0-80.0 mm) as evaluated by pathology. Demographic and lesion features were similar in both groups. Despite similar hospital stay duration and cost, ESE was superior to STER with reduced operation time (34 vs. 46 min, P = 0.013) and less clips required (3 vs. 5, P = 0.000). En bloc resection rates, complete resection rates, hospital stay duration, cost, complications, and hemoglobin levels were similar in both groups. Irregular-shaped SMTs were more likely to achieve piecemeal resection in both STER and ESE groups (all P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the piecemeal resection rate was significantly higher for larger tumors in the STER group. Compared with ESE, STER does not show overt advantages for cardial SMTs. However, ESE is superior to STER for reduced operation time. Irregular tumor shape seems to be a risk factor for piecemeal resection in both STER and ESE.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 20%
Librarian 1 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Researcher 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,611,191
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,796
of 6,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,030
of 326,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#74
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 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 6,116 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 326,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.