↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Colorectal Disease, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00384-016-2544-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chang-Nam Kim, Sung Uk Bae, Seul-Gi Lee, Seung Hyun Yang, In Gun Hyun, Je Ho Jang, Byung Sun Cho, Joo Seung Park

Abstract

A robotic system was mainly designed to allow precise dissection in deep and narrow spaces. We report the clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Between July 2009 and January 2012, 60 consecutive patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer at the Eulji University Hospital were included. The mean total operation time, docking time, and surgeon console time were 466.8 ± 115.6, 7.5 ± 6.7, and 261 ± 87.5 min, respectively. Oral intake of diet was started at 3.3 ± 0.9 days and the mean hospital stay was 8.6 ± 2.4 days. All 60 procedures were technically successful without the need for conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery. Complications included anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stricture, postoperative bleeding, ileus, and perineal wound infection in 3 (5 %), 1 (1.7 %), 2 (3.3 %), 2 (3.3 %), and 1 (1.7 %) patient, respectively. The mean distal resection margin and total number of lymph nodes harvested was 3.1 ± 1.7 cm and 20.1 ± 11.5, respectively. During the mean follow-up period of 48.5 months (range, 7-75), the 4-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 87.7 and 72.8 %, respectively. A totally robotic approach for rectal cancer operations was a time-consuming procedure, although we already had a lot experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, the dexterity of the robotic surgery could enable the surgeon to expand the choice of surgical methods according to the condition of the rectal cancer without the need for conversion.

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%
Student > Master 6 15%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 39%
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 10 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#1,430
of 1,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,440
of 300,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Colorectal Disease
#31
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 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 1,832 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. 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 300,116 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 59 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.