↓ Skip to main content

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 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
Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2020
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2019.0413
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mustafa Gurkan Yenice, Ismail Yigitbasi, Rustu Turkay, Selcuk Sahin, Volkan Tugcu

Abstract

Minimally invasive techniques are used increasingly by virtue of advancements in technology. Surgery for prostate cancer, which has high morbidity, is performed with an increasing momentum based on the successful oncological and functional outcomes as well as cosmetic aspects. 62 patients underwent robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (R-PRP) surgery at our clinic between November 2016 and August 2017. Six pelvimetric dimensions were defined and measured by performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to operation in all patients. In light of these data, we aimed to investigate the effect of pelvimetric measurements on surgery duration and surgical margin positivity. By using this technique in pelvic area, we observed that measurements only representing surgical site and excluding other pelvic organs had a significant effect on surgery duration, and pelvic dimensions had no significant effect on surgical margin positivity. In R-PRP technique, peroperative findings and oncological outcomes can vary depending on several variable factors, but although usually not taken into account, pelvimetric measurements can also affect these outcomes. However, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to be conducted with more patients.

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 4 31%
Unspecified 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Linguistics 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 4 31%
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 14 March 2020.
All research outputs
#22,771,990
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#624
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#374,686
of 433,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 433,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.