| Title |
Robotic distal pancreatectomy versus conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: a comparative study for short-term outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers of Medicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11684-015-0404-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric C. H. Lai, Chung Ngai Tang |
| Abstract |
Robotic system has been increasingly used in pancreatectomy. However, the effectiveness of this method remains uncertain. This study compared the surgical outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. During a 15-year period, 35 patients underwent minimally invasive approach of distal pancreatectomy in our center. Seventeen of these patients had robot-assisted laparoscopic approach, and the remaining 18 had conventional laparoscopic approach. Their operative parameters and perioperative outcomes were analyzed retrospectively in a prospective database. The mean operating time in the robotic group (221.4 min) was significantly longer than that in the laparoscopic group (173.6 min) (P = 0.026). Both robotic and conventional laparoscopic groups presented no significant difference in spleen-preservation rate (52.9% vs. 38.9%) (P = 0.505), operative blood loss (100.3 ml vs. 268.3 ml) (P = 0.29), overall morbidity rate (47.1% vs. 38.9%) (P = 0.73), and post-operative hospital stay (11.4 days vs. 14.2 days) (P = 0.46). Both groups also showed no perioperative mortality. Similar outcomes were observed in robotic distal pancreatectomy and conventional laparoscopic approach. However, robotic approach tended to have the advantages of less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Further studies are necessary to determine the clinical position of robotic distal pancreatectomy. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
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 28 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,330,976
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers of Medicine
#279
of 349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,539
of 264,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers of Medicine
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 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 349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 264,444 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.