↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of robotic single-incision and traditional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of robotic single-incision and traditional single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4223-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Monica Gustafson, Tariq Lescouflair, Randall Kimball, Ibrahim Daoud

Abstract

Surgeons continually strive to improve technology and patient care. One remarkable demonstration of this is the development of laparoscopic surgery. Once this proved to be a safe and reliable surgical approach, robotics seemed a logical progression of surgical technology. The aim of this project was to evaluate the utility of robotics in the context of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC). A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of robotic single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RSILC) and traditional SILC performed by a single surgeon at our institution from July 2010 to August 2013 was queried. All consecutive patients undergoing RSILC and SILC during this time period were included. Primary outcomes include conversion rate and operative time. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, duration of narcotic use, time to independent performance of daily activities and cost. Categorical variables were evaluated using Chi-square analysis and continuous variables using t test or Wilcoxon's rank test. Thirty-eight patients underwent RSILC and 44 underwent SILC. BMI was higher in the RSILC group, and the number of patients with prior abdominal surgeries was higher in the SILC group. Otherwise, demographics were similar between the two groups. There was no difference in conversion rate between RSILC and SILC (8 vs 11 %, p = 0.60). Mean operative time for RSILC was significantly greater compared with SILC (98 vs 68 min, p < 0.0001). RSILC was associated with a longer duration of narcotic use (2.3 vs 1.7 days, p = 0.0019) and time to independent performance of daily activities (4 vs 2.3 days, p < 0.0001). Total cost is greater in RSILC ($8961 vs $5379, p < 0.0001). While RSILC can be safely performed, it is associated with longer operative times and greater cost.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 %
Other 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,813,327
of 24,006,566 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#724
of 6,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,850
of 397,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#14
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,006,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,446 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 397,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.