| Title |
Intraoperative ultrasonography of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy: initial experiences from 110 consecutive cases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5854-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peng Zhu, Wei Liao, Ze-yang Ding, Hong-chang Luo, Bin-hao Zhang, Wan-guang Zhang, Wei Zhang, Zhan-guo Zhang, Bi-xiang Zhang, Xiao-ping Chen |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of IOUS in robotic liver surgery and propose a standard protocol of IOUS for safe robot-assisted hepatectomy. Between February 2015 and December 2016, liver resection was performed in 110 patients with robotic approach in Tongji Hospital. In these patients, IOUS was routinely performed. All data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. A four steps IOUS protocol in robotic liver surgery was proposed, including exploration, verification, guidance, and confirmation. A total of 11 additional lesions in 11 patients were detected and 7 patients accepted strategic surgical modification. No patient suffered from any single or multiple organ dysfunctions, and there were no mortalities observed. IOUS is indispensable to understand lesions and vessels in robotic liver surgery. A four-step standard protocol of IOUS is essential for safe robot-assisted hepatectomy. |
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) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
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 > Bachelor | 3 | 19% |
| Researcher | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 25% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 63% |
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
#240,361
of 334,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#63
of 95 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 334,956 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 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.