↓ Skip to main content

Transduodenal–transpapillary endopancreatic surgery with a rigid resectoscope: experiments on ex vivo, in vivo animal models and human cadavers

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Transduodenal–transpapillary endopancreatic surgery with a rigid resectoscope: experiments on ex vivo, in vivo animal models and human cadavers
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5465-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip C. Müller, Daniel C. Steinemann, Felix Nickel, Lukas Chinczewski, Beat P. Müller-Stich, Georg R. Linke, Kaspar Z’graggen

Abstract

Surgery for chronic pancreatitis is afflicted with high morbidity. A novel transduodenal-transpapillary endopancreatic resection (EPR) may provide a less invasive alternative approach. After laparoscopic duodenotomy the papilla was dilated and accessed with a rigid resectoscope. A resection of pancreatic head tissue was performed from inside the organ. First, the feasibility and resection volume were assessed in bovine pancreas. Bleeding and intraoperative complications were evaluated in an acute in vivo pig model. Finally, the total laparoscopic approach was tested in human cadavers. EPR was feasible in 6/6 bovine and 5/6 porcine pancreases; in one case the papilla could not be located. The resected surface accounted for 30 (23-39)% of the total pancreatic surface and the resection volume was 14.2 (9-25) cm(3). In vivo blood loss was minimal [10 (5-20) ml]. The operating time for EPR was 84 (75-110) min in all cadavers. The EPR technique is feasible and provides a resection comparable with duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR). Given the reduced surgical trauma, EPR may emerge as a minimally invasive alternative to DPPHR.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Computer Science 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,536,772
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,791
of 6,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,986
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#105
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 307,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.