| Title |
Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: current trends and indications. A comparison with the open technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Updates in Surgery, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13304-015-0312-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesca Ratti, Federica Cipriani, Riccardo Ariotti, Fabio Giannone, Michele Paganelli, Luca Aldrighetti |
| Abstract |
Diffusion of laparoscopic major hepatectomies is experiencing a steady increasing trend, although slower compared to minor resections. The aim of this single-center study is to discuss current trends and indications in the application of minimally invasive techniques to major hepatic resections. Preoperative patients and disease characteristics of 49 laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LPS group), performed between 2005 and 2015, were compared with 585 open hepatectomies (Open group) to analyze differences in patients recruitment. Factors which were found to be differently distributed between groups were used as covariates in a propensity score-based case-matched analysis with a 1:3 ratio between LPS group and 147 patients from the Open group (constituting Open-mat group). Short-term outcome was analyzed in matched groups. ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, previous interventional procedures, indication, lesion size and associated procedures were significantly different between the LPS and the Open group. Short-term outcome analysis revealed that blood loss (200 vs 350 mL, p = 0.044) and time for functional recovery (3 vs 4 days, p = 0.05) were reduced in the LPS compared to the Open-mat group, in spite of longer length of surgery (260 vs 170 min, p = 0.041) and comparable oncological adequacy. Even though data on technical feasibility of laparoscopic major resections and their benefits in terms of blood loss and functional recovery support the diffusion of minimally invasive approach, the limit of the technique is still represented by the reduced pool of suitable candidates. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,339,713
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#350
of 640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,016
of 263,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 640 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 263,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.