| Title |
Comparison of single-port and reduced-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for patients with early gastric cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-015-4706-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Su Mi Kim, Man Ho Ha, Jeong Eun Seo, Ji Eun Kim, Min Gew Choi, Tae Sung Sohn, Jae Moon Bae, Sung Kim, Jun Ho Lee |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy (LADG) is a treatment method for patients with early gastric cancer; however, single- or reduced-port LADG for these patients has been rarely reported. To compare surgical outcomes of patients with gastric cancer undergoing single-port totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (TLDG) to those of patients undergoing reduced-port (three ports) TLDG. This retrospective study included 94 patients with early gastric cancer who underwent single-port or reduced-port TLDG at Samsung Medical Center between May 2014 and December 2014. Surgical outcomes were compared between operation methods. There are more female patients (54.2 vs. 19.6 %, p = 0.001) and less obese patients (21.1 ± 2.1 vs. 24.6 ± 3.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.001) in the single-port TLDG group. There were no significant differences in blood loss during surgery, the number of dissected lymph nodes, and the pain score at postoperative first day between two groups. The variance in operation time for the reduced-port TLDG was significantly greater than that for single-port TLDG (p = 0.01). Complication rates in the single-port and reduced-TLDG groups were similar (20.8 vs. 21.7 %, p = 1.000). No postoperative deaths occurred in either group. Single-port TLDG might be considered as a treatment option for a limited subset, such as females or less obese patients with early gastric cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 60% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
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 23 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,433,196
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,758
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,960
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#67
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 390,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.