↓ Skip to main content

Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4284-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto Montalti, Vincenzo Scuderi, Alberto Patriti, Marco Vivarelli, Roberto I. Troisi

Abstract

Open parenchymal-preserving resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the posterosuperior liver segments. Laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery are emergent surgical approaches for liver resections, even in posteriorly located lesions. The objective of this study was to compare robot-assisted to laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections for lesions located in segments 7, 8, 4a, and 1. Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection in two centers for lesions in the posterosuperior segments between June 2008 and February 2014 were reviewed. A 1:2 matched propensity score analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the laparoscopic cohort based on demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, location, and type of resection. Thirty-six patients who underwent robot-assisted liver resection were matched with 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Matched patients displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, hospital stay, R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. The overall morbidity according to the comprehensive complication index was also similar (34.6 ± 33 vs. 18.4 ± 11.3, respectively, for robotic and laparoscopic approach, p = 0.11). Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer inflow occlusion time (77 vs. 25 min, p = 0.001) as compared with their laparoscopic counterparts. Although number and severity of complications in the robotic group appears to be higher, robotic and laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments display similar safety and feasibility.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 45%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 32 41%
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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#20,283,046
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#5,644
of 6,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,417
of 263,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#108
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 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 6,034 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 263,239 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 124 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.