| Title |
Novel multi-image view for neuromapping meets the needs of the robotic surgeon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Techniques in Coloproctology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10151-018-1804-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonas F. Schiemer, Lennart Zimniak, Edin Hadzijusufovic, Hauke Lang, Werner Kneist |
| Abstract |
Pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring during nerve-sparing robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (RTME) is feasible. However, visual separation of the neuromonitoring process from the surgeon console interrupts the workflow and limits the usefulness of available information as the procedure progresses. Since the robotic surgical system provides multi-image views in the surgeon console, the aim of this study was to integrate cystomanometry and internal anal sphincter electromyography signals to aid the robotic surgeon in his/her nerve-sparing technique. We prospectively investigated 5 consecutive patients (1 male, 4 females) who underwent RTME for rectal cancer at our institution in 2017. The robotic surgery was performed using the da Vinci Xi combined with pelvic intraoperative neuromapping with real-time electromyography and cystomanometry signal transmission by multi-image view during RTME. The adapted two-dimensional pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring imaging successfully simulcasted to the surgeon console view in all 5 cases. The technical note is complemented by an intraoperative video. This report demonstrates the technical feasibility of an improved neuromonitoring process during nerve-sparing RTME. Robotic neuromapping can be fully visualized from the surgeon console. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 3 | 12% |
| United States | 3 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 8% |
| Italy | 2 | 8% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Estonia | 1 | 4% |
| Egypt | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 44% |
| Scientists | 5 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 50% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,681,135
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Techniques in Coloproctology
#280
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,855
of 336,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Techniques in Coloproctology
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 336,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 53% of its contemporaries.