↓ Skip to main content

Minimally invasive surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
44 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 surgery techniques in pelvic exenteration: a systematic and meta-analysis review
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00464-018-6299-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

The PelvEx Collaborative

Abstract

Pelvic exenteration is potentially curative for locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancers. Evolving technology has facilitated the use of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in selected cases. We aimed to compare outcomes between open and MIS pelvic exenteration. A review of comparative studies was performed. Firstly, we evaluated the differences in surgical techniques with respect to operative time, blood loss, and margin status. Secondly, we assessed differences in 30-day morbidity and mortality rates, and length of hospital stay. Four studies that directly compared open and MIS exenteration were included. Analysis was performed on 170 patients; 78.1% (n = 133) had open pelvic exenteration, while 21.8% (n = 37) had a MIS exenteration. The median age for open exenteration was 57.7 years versus 63 years for MIS exenteration. Even though the operative time for MIS exenteration was 83 min longer (p < 0.001), it was associated with a median of 1,750mls less blood loss. The morbidity rate for MIS exenterative group was 56.7% (n = 21/37) versus 88.5% (n = 85/96) in the open exenteration group, with pooled analysis observing a 1.17 relative risk increase in 30-day morbidity (p = 0.172) in the open exenteration group. In addition, the MIS cohort had a 6-day shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.04). MIS exenteration can be performed in highly selective cases, where there is favourable patient anatomy and tumour characteristics. When feasible, it is associated with reduced intra-operative blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced morbidity.

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 32 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 44 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 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Librarian 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 19 43%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 50%
Engineering 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 28 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,226,233
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#192
of 9,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,765
of 351,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#8
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,524 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 351,506 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.