↓ Skip to main content

Robotic Liver Resection: A Case‐Matched Comparison

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Robotic Liver Resection: A Case‐Matched Comparison
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00268-016-3446-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Peter Kingham, Universe Leung, Deborah Kuk, Mithat Gönen, Michael I. D’Angelica, Peter J. Allen, Ronald P. DeMatteo, Vincent P. Laudone, William R. Jarnagin, Yuman Fong

Abstract

In recent years, increasingly sophisticated tools have allowed for more complex robotic surgery. Robotic hepatectomy, however, is still in its infancy. Our goals were to examine the adoption of robotic hepatectomy and to compare outcomes between open and robotic liver resections. The robotic hepatectomy experience of 64 patients was compared to a modern case-matched series of 64 open hepatectomy patients at the same center. Matching was according to benign/malignant diagnosis and number of segments resected. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. The main outcomes and measures were operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate (robotic to open), Pringle maneuver use, single non-anatomic wedge resection rate, resection margin size, complication rates (infectious, hepatic, pulmonary, cardiac), hospital stay length, ICU stay length, readmission rate, and 90-day mortality rate. Sixty-four robotic hepatectomies were performed in 2010-2014. Forty-one percent were segmental and 34 % were wedge resections. There was a 6 % conversion rate, a 3 % 90-day mortality rate, and an 11 % morbidity rate. Compared to 64 matched patients who underwent open hepatectomy (2004-2012), there was a shorter median OR time (p = 0.02), lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (p < 0.001). Eleven of the robotic cases were isolated resections of tumors in segments 2, 7, and 8. Robotic hepatectomy is safe and effective. Increasing experience in more centers will allow definition of which hepatectomies can be performed robotically, and will enable optimization of outcomes and prospective examination of the economic cost of each approach.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 51%
Engineering 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 13 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,311,744
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#3,797
of 4,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,062
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#42
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.