| Title |
Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer: Short‐Term Oncologic Outcomes in 1733 Patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Surgery, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00268-015-3138-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam, Kingshuk Choudhury, Paolo Goffredo, Shelby D. Reed, Dan Blazer, Sanziana A. Roman, Julie A. Sosa |
| Abstract |
Data from high-volume institutions suggest that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) provides favorable perioperative outcomes and adequate oncologic resection for pancreatic cancer; however, these outcomes may not be generalizable. This study examines patterns of use and short-term outcomes from MIDP (laparoscopic or robotic) versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in the United States. Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database, 2010-2011. Multivariable modeling was applied to compare short-term outcomes from MIDP versus ODP for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 1733 patients met inclusion criteria: 535 (31 %) had MIDP and 1198 (69 %) ODP. Use of MIDP increased 43 % between 2010 and 2011; the conversion rate from MIDP to ODP was 23 %. MIDP cases were performed at 215 hospitals, with 85 % of hospitals performing <10 cases overall. After adjustment, pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients undergoing MIDP versus ODP had a similar likelihood of complete resection (OR 1.48, p = 0.10), number of lymph nodes removed (RR 1.01, p = 0.91), and 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.02, p = 0.96); however, length of stay was shorter (RR 0.84, p < 0.01). Use of MIDP for cancer is increasing, with most centers performing a low volume of these procedures. Use of MIDP for body and tail pancreatic adenocarcinoma appears to have short-term outcomes that are similar to those of open procedures with the benefit of a shorter hospital stay. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 50 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 27% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,287,548
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,177
of 4,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,792
of 262,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#12
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 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 4,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 262,367 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.