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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Minimally invasive endoscopic thyroid surgery using a collar access: experience in 246 cases with the CEViTS technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5783-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Franz G. Messenbaeck, Michael Weitzendorfer, Cornelia Kaminski, Kai Witzel |
| Abstract |
The arguments for applying minimally invasive techniques are, besides cosmetic results, reduced access trauma and less postoperative pain. In thyroid surgery, cosmetic aspects are gaining importance. Whether minimally invasive endoscopic thyroid surgery is less painful has not been shown yet. In this study, we analyse the outcome of 246 patients who underwent cervical endoscopic video-assisted thyroid surgery (CEViTS) regarding the surgery itself, their postoperative pain and satisfaction with the procedure. CEViTS is routinely performed in our hospital. In this study, no postoperative bleedings that would have made a reoperation necessary occurred. All lobectomies could be completed endoscopically. In two cases, conversions (enlargement of the 5-mm incision to 25 mm) were necessary. Transient nerve palsy was registered in three patients (1.22%). One patient (0.41%) had a permanent palsy of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. In comparison to open surgery (n = 173 patients), the 246 CEViTS patients had a significantly lower pain level (p = 0.047). Cervical endoscopic video-assisted thyroid surgery (CEViTS) can be considered a safe, less traumatizing and useful minimally invasive procedure in endoscopic thyroid surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 20% |
| South Africa | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 18% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 9% |
| Psychology | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,203,307
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,568
of 6,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,268
of 316,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#62
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,097 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 316,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 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 57% of its contemporaries.