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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Early Results of an Innovative Modified Central Pancreatectomy Technique Without Gastroenteric Drainage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1097/sle.0000000000000556 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohamed M Nasr |
| 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. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 58% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
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
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
#415
of 999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,424
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 999 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 341,886 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 15 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.