| Title |
Laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure: technical aspects and results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Updates in Surgery, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13304-016-0352-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Junji Okuda, Masashi Yamamoto, Keitaro Tanaka, Shinsuke Masubuchi, Kazuhisa Uchiyama |
| Abstract |
Laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure is technical demanding and its efficacy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate its technical aspects such as pitfalls and overcoming them, and to demonstrate the short-term and oncologic long-term outcomes. To overcome the difficulty in laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure, we recognized the following technical tips as essential. First of all, we have to precisely identify major vessels variations feeding tumor. Secondary, anatomical dissection of mesocolon through medial approach is indispensible. Third, safe takedown of splenic flexure to fully mobilization of left hemicolon is mandatory. This cohort study analyzed 95 patients with stage II (43) and III (52) underwent resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure. 61 laparoscopic surgeries (LAC) and 34 conventional open surgeries (OC) from December 1996 to December 2009 were evaluated. Short-term and oncologic long-term outcomes were recorded. Operative time was longer in LAC. However, blood loss was less, recovery of bowel function and hospital stay were shorter in LAC. There was no conversion in LAC and no significant difference in the postoperative complications. Regarding oncologic long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between OC and LAC. Laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure resulted in acceptable short-term and oncologic long-term outcomes. Once technical tips acquired, laparoscopic resection of transverse colon cancer at splenic flexure could be feasible as minimally invasive surgery. |
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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 54% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,317,110
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Updates in Surgery
#509
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,516
of 300,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Updates in Surgery
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 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 641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. 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 300,412 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 23 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.