↓ Skip to main content

En bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC): a European multicenter study to compare safety, efficacy, and outcome of laser and electrical en bloc transurethral resection of…

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
En bloc resection of urothelium carcinoma of the bladder (EBRUC): a European multicenter study to compare safety, efficacy, and outcome of laser and electrical en bloc transurethral resection of bladder tumor
Published in
World Journal of Urology, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00345-015-1568-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario W. Kramer, Jens J. Rassweiler, Jan Klein, Alexey Martov, Nikolay Baykov, Lukas Lusuardi, Günter Janetschek, Rodolfo Hurle, Mathias Wolters, Mahmoud Abbas, Christoph A. von Klot, Armin Leitenberger, Markus Riedl, Udo Nagele, Axel S. Merseburger, Markus A. Kuczyk, Marko Babjuk, Thomas R. W. Herrmann

Abstract

En bloc resection of bladder tumors (ERBT) may improve staging quality and perioperative morbidity and influence tumor recurrence. This study was designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and recurrence rates of electrical versus laser en bloc resection of bladder tumors. This European multicenter study included 221 patients at six academic hospitals. Transurethral ERBT was performed with monopolar/bipolar current or holmium/thulium laser energy. Staging quality measured by detrusor muscle involvement, various perioperative parameters, and 12-month follow-up data was analyzed. Electrical and laser ERBT were used to treat 156 and 65 patients, respectively. Median tumor size was 2.1 cm; largest tumor was 5 cm. Detrusor muscle was present in 97.3 %. A switch to conventional TURBT was significantly more frequent in the electrical ERBT group (26.3 vs. 1.5 %, p < 0.001). Median operation duration (25 min), postoperative irrigation (1 day), catheterization time (2 days), and hospitalization (3 days) were similar. Overall complication rate was low (Clavien ≥ 3, n = 6 [2.7 %]). Hemoglobin was significantly lower after electrical ERBT (p = 0.0013); however, overall hemoglobin loss was not clinically relevant (0.38 g/dl). Patients (n = 148) were followed for 12 months; 33 (22.3 %) had recurrences. In total, 63.6 % recurrences occurred outside the ERBT resection field. No difference was noted between ERBT groups. ERBT is safe and reliable regardless of the energy source and provides high-quality resections of tumors >1 cm. Recurrence rates did not differ between groups, and the majority of recurrences occurred outside the ERBT resection field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Other 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 31 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Engineering 1 <1%
Unknown 41 37%
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 19 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,433,099
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,286
of 2,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,809
of 265,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#19
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 265,098 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 52% of its contemporaries.