↓ Skip to main content

Report on First International Workshop on Robotic Surgery in Thoracic Oncology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Report on First International Workshop on Robotic Surgery in Thoracic Oncology
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00214
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulia Veronesi, Robert Cerfolio, Roberto Cingolani, Jens C. Rueckert, Luc Soler, Alper Toker, Umberto Cariboni, Edoardo Bottoni, Uberto Fumagalli, Franca Melfi, Carlo Milli, Pierluigi Novellis, Emanuele Voulaz, Marco Alloisio

Abstract

A workshop of experts from France, Germany, Italy, and the United States took place at Humanitas Research Hospital Milan, Italy, on February 10 and 11, 2016, to examine techniques for and applications of robotic surgery to thoracic oncology. The main topics of presentation and discussion were robotic surgery for lung resection; robot-assisted thymectomy; minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer; new developments in computer-assisted surgery and medical applications of robots; the challenge of costs; and future clinical research in robotic thoracic surgery. The following article summarizes the main contributions to the workshop. The Workshop consensus was that since video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is becoming the mainstream approach to resectable lung cancer in North America and Europe, robotic surgery for thoracic oncology is likely to be embraced by an increasing numbers of thoracic surgeons, since it has technical advantages over VATS, including intuitive movements, tremor filtration, more degrees of manipulative freedom, motion scaling, and high-definition stereoscopic vision. These advantages may make robotic surgery more accessible than VATS to trainees and experienced surgeons and also lead to expanded indications. However, the high costs of robotic surgery and absence of tactile feedback remain obstacles to widespread dissemination. A prospective multicentric randomized trial (NCT02804893) to compare robotic and VATS approaches to stages I and II lung cancer will start shortly.

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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 43%
Engineering 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#5,632
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,256
of 320,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#18
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 320,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 68% of its contemporaries.