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 |
Comparison of two different suture techniques in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0550 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Onur Kaygisiz, Sinan Çelen, Berna Aytac Vuruşkan, Hakan Vuruşkan |
| Abstract |
To comparatively evaluate the traditional interrupted knot-tying and running suture renorrhaphy with Monocryl® in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). A retrospective analysis of 62 consecutive patients undergoing LPN using traditional interrupted knot-tying suture renorrhaphy (Group 1; n=31) or running suture technique renorrhaphy with 2-0 monofilament polyglecaprone (Monocryl®, Ethicon) (Group 2; n=31) from December 2011 to October 2015 at the University. All patients underwent LPN performed by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon. The demographic, perioperative and postoperative parameters were compared between the groups, and the effect of both suture techniques on the warm ischemic time (WIT) and trifecta were evaluated. The running suture renorrhaphy with Monocryl® reduced WIT, estimated blood lost and length of hospitalization stay significantly without increasing postoperative complication rate during LPN in comparison with interrupted knot-tying suture. The renorrhaphy using the running suture with Monocryl® is an effective and safe technique with the advantage of shortening WIT even in more challenging and larger tumors during LPN. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 32% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 14% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#469
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,195
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#27
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 421,709 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.