| Title |
Intraoperative image-guided navigation system: development and applicability in 65 patients undergoing liver surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00423-016-1417-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa M. Banz, Philip C. Müller, Pascale Tinguely, Daniel Inderbitzin, Delphine Ribes, Matthias Peterhans, Daniel Candinas, Stefan Weber |
| Abstract |
Image-guided systems have recently been introduced for their application in liver surgery. We aimed to identify and propose suitable indications for image-guided navigation systems in the domain of open oncologic liver surgery and, more specifically, in the setting of liver resection with and without microwave ablation. Retrospective analysis was conducted in patients undergoing liver resection with and without microwave ablation using an intraoperative image-guided stereotactic system during three stages of technological development (accuracy: 8.4 ± 4.4 mm in phase I and 8.4 ± 6.5 mm in phase II versus 4.5 ± 3.6 mm in phase III). It was evaluated, in which indications image-guided surgery was used according to the different stages of technical development. Between 2009 and 2013, 65 patients underwent image-guided surgical treatment, resection alone (n = 38), ablation alone (n = 11), or a combination thereof (n = 16). With increasing accuracy of the system, image guidance was progressively used for atypical resections and combined microwave ablation and resection instead of formal liver resection (p < 0.0001). Clinical application of image guidance is feasible, while its efficacy is subject to accuracy. The concept of image guidance has been shown to be increasingly efficient for selected indications in liver surgery. While accuracy of available technology is increasing pertaining to technological advancements, more and more previously untreatable scenarios such as multiple small, bilobar lesions and so-called vanishing lesions come within reach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 51 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 21% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 35% |
| Engineering | 7 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 37% |
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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#20,246,480
of 25,746,891 outputs
Outputs from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#934
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,234
of 313,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
#24
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,746,891 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,430 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 313,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.