↓ Skip to main content

Early Results of an Innovative Modified Central Pancreatectomy Technique Without Gastroenteric Drainage

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Early Results of an Innovative Modified Central Pancreatectomy Technique Without Gastroenteric Drainage
Published in
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, June 2018
DOI 10.1097/sle.0000000000000556
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasr, Mohamed M.

Abstract

Central pancreatectomy (CP) has been used sparingly because the spectrum of indications is quite narrow. The author has modified the procedure of CP in such a way to avoid distal pancreatic segment drainage, in addition to reserving the patient euo-insulinemic. Between March 2010 and January 2015, 41 cases have been recruited. Cases presented with blunt abdominal trauma showing central pancreatic transection with or without duodenal transection have been recruited. Technique of CP has been modified to enable sparing distal pancreatic drainage procedure. The study describes a case series where the modified technique in the field of pancreatic surgery is applied on trauma patients through both laparoscopic and open approaches according to patients' hemodynamic stability. There was no pancreatic fistula, deficiency nor any of the major complications related to the traditional CP technique. None of the cases developed pancreatic necrosis or fistula, steatorrhea or showed picture of diabetes mellitus. The new technique has used the available anatomic and functional pancreatic facts to revolute sparing the distal pancreatic drainage procedure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 43%
Professor 1 14%
Unspecified 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Unspecified 2 29%
Unknown 2 29%

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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#9,974,933
of 12,460,170 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
#180
of 512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,451
of 268,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,460,170 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 512 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 268,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.