↓ Skip to main content

Saphenous-sparing laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Saphenous-sparing laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, June 2018
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2017.0120
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gaetano Chiapparrone, Sebastiano Rapisarda, Bernardino de Concilio, Guglielmo Zeccolini, Michele Antoniutti, Antonio Celia

Abstract

Inguinal lymphadenectomy is an integral part in the management of penile cancer. Video endoscopic in-guinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) is emerging as a minimally invasive treatment to reduce postoperative complications. 62 years old man underwent glansectomy for a squamous cell carcinoma (pT1b). At the physical examination one left inguinal lymph node was detectable (cN1). The chest-abdomen-pelvis CT was negative for me-tastasis. A 10-mm optical trocar and two 5mm operating trocar were placed. The optical trocar was placed in the apex of Scarpa's triangle after a skin incision and after the creation of a subcutaneous space by blunt finger dissection. The pCO2 was 8-10mmHg. The surgical technique involved the removal of superficial lymph nodes according to the scheme described by Deseler and of the deep lymph nodes. Sparing main venous structures and closing lymphatic vessels is im-portant to reduce post operative complications. At the end of the procedure, a suction drain was placed per side. Operative time was 90 minutes per side. Drains were removed on the seventh postoperative day. Hospital stay was 8 days and no postoperative complications occurred. The total number of nodes removed was 16 (8 per side) with 2 superficial positive nodes on the left side. ILND is burned by a high complication rate. VEIL provides a less invasive approach and a saphenous-sparing technique ensures a lower complication rate, reducing lymphorrhea, skin necrosis and wound complications (1-3). In experienced laparoscopic hands, VEIL is a safe and effective treatment.

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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 57%
Unspecified 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#469
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,264
of 342,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#8
of 9 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 342,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.