↓ Skip to main content

Robotic Primary RPLND for Stage I Testicular Cancer: a Review of Indications and Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Current Urology Reports, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Robotic Primary RPLND for Stage I Testicular Cancer: a Review of Indications and Outcomes
Published in
Current Urology Reports, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11934-016-0597-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather J. Chalfin, Wesley Ludwig, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Mohamad E. Allaf

Abstract

Patients diagnosed with stage I non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) face the task of selecting a management strategy. Whereas these options all offer excellent survival, unfortunately, each has drawbacks. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is a major operation with low, but significant risks of bleeding, chylous ascites, and retrograde ejaculation. Platinum-based chemotherapy is associated with a number of long-term side effects, not all of which are quantified, but include secondary malignancy and early cardiovascular disease. While surveillance minimizes the chances of exposure to unnecessary treatment, it is not infrequently salvaged with chemotherapy and requires a compliant patient willing to undergo serial imaging often with ionizing radiation. Although fewer than one-third of patients will relapse without intervention, the current guidelines propose treatment for stage I patients with high-risk features. New developments in minimally invasive techniques may mitigate the harms of RPLND and avoid the side effects of chemotherapy, making it an ideal option for this cohort of patients. Unlike laparoscopic RPLND, which was introduced as a staging procedure and heavily criticized for the advanced skill set required to achieve oncologic equivalence, robotic RPLND may offer the benefits of a minimally invasive technique without a steep learning curve and a true therapeutic operation in experienced hands.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,476,657
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#268
of 590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,509
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 299,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.