↓ Skip to main content

Simulated management of urinary tract injury during robotic pelvic surgery utilizing the porcine model

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Simulated management of urinary tract injury during robotic pelvic surgery utilizing the porcine model
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11701-018-0852-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitchel S. Hoffman, Philippe E. Spiess

Abstract

Urologic injury is an infrequent but serious complication of pelvic surgery. Training in the assessment and management of this injury might be enhanced through animated simulation. Our objective was to assess the intraoperative management of urologic injury with robotic pelvic surgery using a simulated injury animal model. We used a female domestic pig to create three types of urologic injury, which we then managed with robotically assisted surgery. An edited video of the model was assessed by 14 senior learners and 10 attending faculty. The assessments included key competencies and domains of fidelity. A scale of poor, fair, or good was utilized. The defects and repairs simulated those seen in humans, both anatomically and surgically, although deficiencies were noted. Related to fidelity of the anatomy of the ureter and bladder, lower ratings were given for some of the key competencies (determining the relationship to the trigone, ureteral mobilization, repair of all 3 injuries). The porcine model for simulation of urologic injury during robotically assisted pelvic surgery may be useful for training purposes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 56%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,224,207
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#134
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,107
of 326,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 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 690 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 326,757 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 66% of its contemporaries.