↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols in Major Urologic Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols in Major Urologic Surgery
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalija Vukovic, Ljubomir Dinic

Abstract

The analysis of the components of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in urologic surgery. ERAS protocols has been studied for over 20 years in different surgical procedures, mostly in colorectal surgery. The concept of improving patient care and reducing postoperative complications was also applied to major urologic surgery and especially procedure of radical cystectomy. This procedure is technically challenging, due to a major surgical resection and high postoperative complication rate that may reach 65%. Several clinical pathways were introduced to improve perioperative course and reduce the length of hospital stay. These protocols differ from ERAS modalities in other surgeries. The reasons for this are longer operative time, increased risk of perioperative transfusion and infection, and urinary diversion achieved using transposed intestinal segments. Previous studies in this area analyzed the need for mechanical bowel preparation, postoperative nasogastric tube decompression, as well as the duration of urinary drainage. Furthermore, the attention has also been drawn to perioperative fluid optimization, pain management, and bowel function. Notwithstanding partial resemblance between the pathways in major urologic surgery and other pelvic surgeries, there are still scarce guidelines for ERAS protocols in urology, which is why further studies should assess the importance of preoperative medical optimization, implementation of thoracic epidural anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative nutritional management.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 37 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 44 42%
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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,944,820
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#3,695
of 5,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,991
of 329,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#86
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 329,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.