↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with a History of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Feasibility and Evaluation of Initial Outcomes
Published in
Journal of Endourology, January 2015
DOI 10.1089/end.2014.0767
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate outcomes of post-holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: Using an institutional database, we identified 11 HoLEP patients who subsequently underwent RARP. These were matched 1:2 to RARP patients without a previous transurethral surgical procedure. Variables matched were age, pre-RARP prostate-specific antigen level, and biopsy Gleason score. Urinary continence and sexual function were evaluated by physician questioning, American Urological Association symptom score, and Sexual Health in Men (SHIM) scores. Descriptive statistics were used to compare cohorts. Results: RARP pathologic outcomes were similar between cases and controls. Twenty-seven percent of previous HoLEP patients reached strict urinary continence (leak free, pad free) at last follow-up compared with 64% of matched controls (P=0.071). The average (range) SHIM score at last follow-up was 2.6 (1-5) for previous HoLEP patients compared with 13.9 (5-20) (P<0.001). The posterior bladder neck and apical dissections were significantly more challenging in the setting of previous HoLEP and necessitated a low threshold for wider resection to minimize positive surgical margins. Conclusions: Post-HoLEP RARP is challenging but preliminarily appears safe and feasible when performed by an experienced robotic surgeon. Patients should be counseled regarding expectations of urinary continence and sexual function in this setting.

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 2 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 42 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 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 24%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 29%
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 19 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,128,127
of 29,014,077 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Endourology
#1,867
of 2,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,899
of 372,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Endourology
#24
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,014,077 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 372,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.