| Title |
3D vision and maintenance of stable pneumoperitoneum: a new step in the development of laparoscopic right hepatectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6205-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takayuki Kawai, Claire Goumard, Florence Jeune, Shohei Komatsu, Olivier Soubrane, Olivier Scatton |
| Abstract |
Although laparoscopic liver resection is widely performed, many technical difficulties remain, such as accurate isolation/division of hepatic vessels in laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH). Innovative surgical devices, such as three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy and optimized carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation system, may help to overcome technical difficulties in LRH. The purpose of this study was to analyze the efficacy of 3D vision associated with active pneumoperitoneum maintenance in LRH. In our prospectively maintained database from 2006, 75 consecutive LRH from May 2011 to June 2017 were included in this study. All LRH were performed with 2D vision and standard CO2 insufflator (2D-LRH group, 45 cases) or 3D vision with optimized CO2 insufflator (3D-LRH group, 30 cases). Preoperative clinical characteristics, surgical data including operation time of separate steps within the procedure, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Clinical and pathological factors were comparable between two groups. Total operative time was significantly shorter in 3D-LRH group than in 2D-LRH (360 vs 390 min, P = 0.029). Right hepatic pedicle dissection time was significantly shorter in 3D-LRH group (101 vs 123 min, P = 0.003). Liver parenchyma transection time was also shorter in 3D-LRH group (138 vs 151 min, P = 0.089), although not significant. There was no significant difference in liver mobilization time, intraoperative bleeding/transfusion, and postoperative complications. 3D vision with maintenance of pneumoperitoneum facilitates hepatic vascular isolation/division, and may contribute to the development of LRH. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 20% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 33% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 53% |
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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,641,800
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,802
of 6,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,216
of 330,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#79
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 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 6,123 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 330,121 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 100 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.