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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Implantation of a biodegradable rectum balloon implant: Tips, Tricks and Pitfalls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0494 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ben G. L. Vanneste, Kees van De Beek, Ludy Lutgens, Philippe Lambin |
| Abstract |
A rectum balloon implant (RBI) is a new device to spare rectal structures during prostate cancer radiotherapy. The theoretical advantages of a RBI are to reduce the high radiation dose to the anterior rectum wall, the possibility of a post-implant correction, and their predetermined shape with consequent predictable position. To describe, step-by-step, our mini-invasive technique for hands-free transperineal implantation of a RBI before start of radiotherapy treatment. We provide step-by-step instructions for optimization of the transperineal implantation procedure performed by urologists and/or radiation oncologists experienced with prostate brachytherapy and the use of the real-time bi-plane transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) probe. A RBI was performed in 15 patients with localised prostate cancer. Perioperative side-effects were reported. We provide 'tips and tricks' for optimizing the procedure and proper positioning of the RBI. Please watch the animation, see video in https://vimeo.com/205852376/789df4fae4. The side-effects included mild discomfort to slight pain at the perineal region in 8 out of 15 patients. Seven patients (47%) had no complaints at all. Two patients developed redness of the skin, where prompt antibiotic regimen was started with no further sequelae. One patient revealed a temporary urine retention, which resolved in a few hours following conservative treatment. Further no perioperative complications occurred. This paper describes in detail the implantation procedure for an RBI. It is a feasible, safe and very well-tolerated procedure. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#5,449,088
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#94
of 726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,180
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#5
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 726 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.