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 |
Preliminary experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Surgery, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12893-017-0225-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Asaad F. Salama, Mohamed E. Abd Ellatif, Hesham Abd Elaziz, Alaa Magdy, Hisham Rizk, Magdy Basheer, Wisam Jamal, Ibrahim Dawoud, Ayman El Nakeeb |
| Abstract |
Herein we present our experience with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in managing common bile duct stones. Data of 129 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LCBDE done at our institutes from April 2011 through June 2016 were prospectively recorded and retrospectively reviewed. Since 2011, 3012 laparoscopic cholecystectomy were performed at our institutes, intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) was done in 295 (9.8%) patients which detected choledocholithiasis in 129 (4.3%) of them. LCBDE was successful to clear the common bile duct (CBD) in 123/129 (95.4%). Six patients underwent postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) because of incomplete CBD clearance (4 cases), symptomatic stenosed papilla (2 cases). LCBDE was performed in 103 patients via trans-cystic approach and choledochotomy one in 26 patients. In the choledochotomy group, seven patients had primary closure of the CBD, CBD was closed over T-tube in nine patients whereas the remaining 10 patients the CBD was closed over antegrade inserted stent. The median time of hospital stay was 4 (range; 1-15) days. No patients showed retained CBD stones with mean follow up was 9 ± 3.4 months. LCBDE is a safe and cost effective option for CBD stones in short-term outcome and can be performed provided proper laparoscopic expertise and facilities are available. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 48% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
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 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
#18,550,124
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#622
of 1,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,362
of 309,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 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 1,330 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. 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 309,419 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.