| Title |
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel articulating devices: a comparative study in a live porcine model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6408-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuharu Okamoto, Ryu Nakadate, Shotaro Nakamura, Jumpei Arata, Susumu Oguri, Tomohiko Moriyama, Motohiro Esaki, Tsutomu Iwasa, Kenoki Ohuchida, Tomohiko Akahoshi, Tetsuo Ikeda, Takanari Kitazono, Makoto Hashizume |
| Abstract |
Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is time-consuming and bears a high risk of perforation. The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy between novel articulating devices and conventional ESD in live porcine colon models. Thirty ESDs in ten pigs were carried out at three different locations (15, 25, and 35 cm from the anus) by the conventional method (n = 15) and by the new method (n = 15). Procedure times, adverse events (perforation, bleeding), and damage to the muscular layer were recorded, and the ESD time per unit area of the specimens was calculated. The perforation rate using the conventional method was 6.7% (1/15), whereas that using the new method was 0.0%. The number of sites of muscular damage was significantly lower in the new than conventional method (6 vs. 37, respectively; P = 0.024). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the new than conventional method (4.6 ± 2.0 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1 min/cm2, respectively; P = 0.042). Use of the new ESD method allows for reduced adverse events and a shortened resection time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 22% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Researcher | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 44% |
| Engineering | 2 | 22% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,989,170
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,427
of 6,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,932
of 335,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#61
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,125 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 335,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.