↓ Skip to main content

Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono-institutional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Robotic vs laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: a retrospective comparative mono-institutional study
Published in
BMC Surgery, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12893-016-0180-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Cianchi, Giampiero Indennitate, Giacomo Trallori, Manuela Ortolani, Beatrice Paoli, Giuseppe Macrì, Gabriele Lami, Beatrice Mallardi, Benedetta Badii, Fabio Staderini, Etleva Qirici, Antonio Taddei, Maria Novella Ringressi, Luca Messerini, Luca Novelli, Siro Bagnoli, Andrea Bonanomi, Caterina Foppa, Ileana Skalamera, Giulia Fiorenza, Giuliano Perigli

Abstract

Robotic surgery has been developed with the aim of improving surgical quality and overcoming the limitations of conventional laparoscopy in the performance of complex mini-invasive procedures. The present study was designed to compare robotic and laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in the treatment of gastric cancer. Between June 2008 and September 2015, 41 laparoscopic and 30 robotic distal gastrectomies were performed by a single surgeon at the same institution. Clinicopathological characteristics of the patients, surgical performance, postoperative morbidity/mortality and pathologic data were prospectively collected and compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups by the Chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney test, as indicated. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. Mean tumor size was larger in the laparoscopic than in the robotic patients (5.3 ± 0.5 cm and 3.0 ± 0.4 cm, respectively; P = 0.02). However, tumor stage distribution was similar between the two groups. The mean number of dissected lymph nodes was higher in the robotic than in the laparoscopic patients (39.1 ± 3.7 and 30.5 ± 2.0, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean operative time was 262.6 ± 8.6 min in the laparoscopic group and 312.6 ± 15.7 min in the robotic group (P < 0.001). The incidences of surgery-related and surgery-unrelated complications were similar in the laparoscopic and in the robotic patients. There were no significant differences in short-term clinical outcomes between the two groups. Within the limitation of a small-sized, non-randomized analysis, our study confirms that robotic distal gastrectomy is a feasible and safe surgical procedure. When compared with conventional laparoscopy, robotic surgery shows evident benefits in the performance of lymphadenectomy with a higher number of retrieved and examined lymph nodes.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 34%
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 20 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#636
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,645
of 323,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 323,195 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.