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 |
Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy in the Elderly – Results of a Single Center LRC only Series
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2015.0419 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tom J. N. Hermans, Laurent M. C. L. Fossion, Rob Verhoeven, Simon Horenblas |
| Abstract |
To compare outcome of laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with ileal conduit in 22 elderly (≥75 years.) versus 51 younger (< 75 years.) patients. Analysis of prospectively gathered data of a single institution LRC only series was performed. Selection bias for LRC versus non-surgical treatments was assessed with data retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Median age difference between LRC groups was 9.0 years (77.0 versus 68.0 years). Both groups had similar surgical indications, body mass index and gender distribution. Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3 versus 4 in ≥50% of younger and elderly patients. Median operative time (340 versus 341 min) and estimated blood loss (< 500 versus >500mL) did not differ between groups. Median total hospital stay was 12.0 versus 14.0 days for younger and elderly patients. Grade I-II 90-d complication rate was higher for elderly patients (68 versus 43%, p=0.05). Grade III-V 90-d complication rate was equal for both groups (23 versus 29%, p=0.557). 90-d mortality rate was higher for elderly patients (14 versus 4%, p=0.157). Median follow-up was 40.0 months for younger and 57.0 months for elderly patients. Estimated overall and cancer-specific survival at 5years. was 46% versus 35% and 64% versus 64% for youn¬ger and elderly patients respectively. Our results suggest that LRC is feasible in elderly patients, where a non¬-surgical treatment is usually favoured. |
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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 25% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 67% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
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 05 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#469
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,045
of 399,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#35
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 399,675 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.