| Title |
Macroscopic Evaluation of Gastric Specimens After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy—an Optimum Screening Test for Incidental Pathologies?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Obesity Surgery, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11695-018-3485-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maciej Walędziak, Anna Różańska-Walędziak, Michał R. Janik, Krzysztof W. Paśnik, Piotr K. Kowalewski |
| Abstract |
Obesity is a serious lifestyle disease with various comorbidities and an augmented risk of cancer. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has recently become the most popular bariatric procedure worldwide. While the cost-effectiveness is a major healthcare providers' concern, the point of histological exam of each resected tissue may be questioned. We prospectively included patients who underwent LSG. Before the surgery, gastroscopy and abdominal sonography were performed to exclude malignancies. The gastric specimen was cut open after the surgery and inspected macroscopically, then sent for a microscopic examination. In 5 cases out of 115, macroscopic evaluation of the resected specimen performed by the surgeon suggested existing pathology, confirmed by a microscopic evaluation in 3 out of 5 cases. In the remaining 2 cases, pathological analysis did not reveal abnormalities. In 110 cases, the gastric specimen was recognized to be unchanged by the surgeon, 109 out of which were confirmed by the pathologist to be normal, in 1 case a hyperplastic polyp was found. The sensitivity of macroscopic evaluation reached 75% (95% CI, 19.4-99.4%, p = 0.625), with specificity of 98.2% (95% CI, 93.6-99.8%, p < 0.0001), and negative predictive value of 99.1% (95% CI, 95-99.9%, p < 0.0001). During LSG, a thorough visual inspection of the peritoneal cavity along with a macroscopic surgical evaluation of specimen in patients who had preoperative endoscopy with no findings allows to achieve very good specificity and good sensitivity. Therefore, this procedure may be useful as a screening test for incidental pathologies in bariatric patients and may exclude unnecessary histological examination. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Poland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 46% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,424,488
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#1,853
of 3,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,538
of 335,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#38
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.