↓ Skip to main content

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
70 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.
Article details
Title
Minimally Invasive Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy
Published in
Annals of Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1097/sla.0000000000002259
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To compare the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) in comparison with open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in a national cohort of patients. Limited well-controlled studies exist comparing perioperative outcomes between MIPD and OPD. Patients who underwent MIPD and OPD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2015 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. OPD and MIPD patients were matched 3:1 using propensity score, and perioperative outcomes were compared. A total of 4484 patients were identified with 334 (7.4%) undergoing MIPD. MIPD patients were younger, more likely to be White, and had a lower rate of weight loss. They were more likely to undergo classic Whipple and to have a drain placed. After 3:1 matching, 1002 OPD patients were compared with 334 MIPD patients. MIPD was associated with longer mean operative time (426.6 vs 359.6 minutes; P < 0.01), higher readmission rate (19.2% vs 14.3%; P = 0.04) and lower rate of prolonged length of stay >14 days (16.5% vs 21.6%; P = 0.047). The 2 groups had a similar rate of 30-day mortality (MIPD 1.8% vs OPD 1.3%; P = 0.51), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula, and delayed gastric emptying. A secondary analysis comparing MIPD without conversion or open assist with OPD showed that MIPD patients had lower rates of overall surgical site infection (13.4% vs 19.6%; P = 0.04) and transfusion (7.9% vs 14.4%; P = 0.02). MIPD had an equivalent morbidity and mortality rate to OPD, with the benefit of a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay, though this is partially offset by an increased readmission rate.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 19%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Engineering 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 29 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 09 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,930,882
of 32,489,062 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgery
#1,252
of 11,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,276
of 361,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgery
#29
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,489,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 361,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 74% of its contemporaries.