↓ Skip to main content

MORTALITY OF URGENCY VERSUS ELECTIVE VIDEOLAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY FOR ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS

Overview of attention for article published in ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
MORTALITY OF URGENCY VERSUS ELECTIVE VIDEOLAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY FOR ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS
Published in
ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo), January 2017
DOI 10.1590/0102-6720201700010013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saulo José Oliveira Felício, Ediriomar Peixoto Matos, Antonio Maurício Cerqueira, Kurt Wolfgang Schindler Freire de Farias, Ramon de Assis Silva, Mateus de Oliveira Torres

Abstract

Surgical approach is still controversial in patients with acute cholecystitis: to treat clinically the inflammatory process and operate electively later or to operate immediately on an emergency basis? To test the hypothesis that urgent laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis has a higher mortality than elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. From the data available in Datasus, mortality was compared between patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholelithiasis and in urgency. Calculations were made of the relative reduction in risk of death, absolute reduction of risk of death and number needed to treat. From 2009 to 2014 in Brazil, there were 250.439 laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 74.6% were electives. Mortality in the emergency group was 4.8 times higher compared to the elective group (0.0023% vs. 0.00048%). Despite the relative reduction in risk of death (RRR) was 83%, in the calculation of absolute risk was found 0.0018 and number needed to treat of 55,555. Despite the relative risk reduction for mortality was high comparing elective vs. urgent basis, the absolute risk reduction was minimal, since this outcome is very low in both groups, suggesting that mortality should not have much influence on surgical decision. Continua controversa a conduta nos pacientes com colecistite aguda: compensar o processo inflamatório e operar eletivamente ou operar imediatamente em caráter de urgência? Testar a hipótese de que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica de urgência por colecistite aguda apresenta maior mortalidade que a colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva. A partir dos dados disponíveis no Datasus, foi comparada a mortalidade entre os pacientes submetidos à colecistectomia videolaparoscópica eletiva por colelitíase e a de urgência. Foram realizados cálculos da redução relativa de risco de morte, redução absoluta do risco de morte e número necessário para tratar . De 2009 a 2014 no Brasil, foram realizadas 250.439 colecistectomias videolaparoscópicas sendo 74,6% eletivas. A mortalidade no grupo de emergência foi 4,8 vezes mais elevada em comparação com o grupo eletivo (0,0023% vs. 0,00048%). Apesar da redução relativa do risco de morte (RRR) ser de 83%, no cálculo do risco absoluto encontrou-se 0,0018 e número necessário para tratar de 55.555. Apesar da redução relativa de risco para mortalidade ser alta comparando o caráter eletivo vs. urgência, a redução de risco absoluto é mínima, já que esse desfecho é muito baixo nos dois grupos, sugerindo que a mortalidade não deve ter muita influência na tomada de decisão cirúrgica.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 36%
Researcher 6 21%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Master 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 32%
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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,358,408
of 25,887,951 outputs
Outputs from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#148
of 293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,076
of 424,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,887,951 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 293 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 424,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 62% of its contemporaries.