↓ Skip to main content

Fluorescence-guided selective arterial clamping during RAPN provides better early functional outcomes based on renal scan compared to standard clamping

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Fluorescence-guided selective arterial clamping during RAPN provides better early functional outcomes based on renal scan compared to standard clamping
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11701-018-0862-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Mattevi, L. G. Luciani, W. Mantovani, T. Cai, S. Chiodini, V. Vattovani, M. Puglisi, G. Malossini

Abstract

To compare the functional and operative outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy with selective arterial clamping guided by near infrared fluorescence imaging (NIRF-RAPN) versus a cohort of patients who underwent standard RAPN without selective arterial clamping (S-RAPN). 62 consecutive patients underwent RAPN from January 2016 to May 2017: the last 20 patients underwent NIRF-RAPN. Preoperative and postoperative renal scan at 1 month were performed to evaluate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of the operated renal unit and total function. Functional and operative outcomes of cases were compared with a cohort of 42 patients undergoing S-RAPN. Selective clamping was performed in 15 patients (75%), whereas five (25%) cases were converted to S-RAPN, due to incomplete ischemic appearance of the tumor after selective clamping. Median tumor diameter was 40 mm in both groups. Median selective clamping was 24 min in both groups. Operative time (206' vs 190') and blood loss (200 vs 170 cc) were comparable. No major complications have been reported in the NIRF-RAPN group, whereas three acute hemorrhages with embolization were found in the S-RAPN group. The analysis of renal scan data revealed that a greater loss of GFR in the operated renal unit was observed after S-RAPN compared to NIRF-RAPN [21.5% vs. 5.5%; p = 0.046], as well as total GFR loss [8% vs 0%; p = 0.007]. The use of NIRF imaging was associated with improved short-term renal functional outcomes compared to RAPN without selective arterial clamping. To our knowledge, this is the first comparative study analyzing the GFR obtained from renal scan.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Other 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Chemistry 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,888,866
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#155
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,863
of 331,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th 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 77% 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 331,387 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 64% 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.