↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive?
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11701-016-0598-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan G. Sham, Morgan K. Richards, Y. David Seo, Venu G. Pillarisetty, Raymond S. Yeung, James O. Park

Abstract

Robotic technology is being utilized in multiple hepatobiliary procedures, including hepatic resections. The benefits of minimally invasive surgical approaches have been well documented; however, there is some concern that robotic liver surgery may be prohibitively costly and therefore should be limited on this basis. A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed of robotic and open liver resections performed for benign and malignant pathologies. Clinical and cost outcomes were analyzed using adjusted generalized linear regression models. Clinical and cost data for 71 robotic (RH) and 88 open (OH) hepatectomies were analyzed. Operative time was significantly longer in the RH group (303 vs. 253 min; p = 0.004). Length of stay was more than 2 days shorter in the RH group (4.2 vs. 6.5 days; p < 0.001). RH perioperative costs were higher ($6026 vs. $5479; p = 0.047); however, postoperative costs were significantly lower, resulting in lower total hospital direct costs compared with OH controls ($14,754 vs. $18,998; p = 0.001). Robotic assistance is safe and effective while performing major and minor liver resections. Despite increased perioperative costs, overall RH direct costs are not greater than OH, the current standard of care.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 12%
Unspecified 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Unspecified 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#14,198,151
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#323
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,361
of 298,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
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 298,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.