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 |
Port site recurrence after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13256-017-1319-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kota Shimokihara, Takashi Kawahara, Daiji Takamoto, Taku Mochizuki, Yusuke Hattori, Jun-ichi Teranishi, Yasuhide Miyoshi, Sawako Chiba, Hiroji Uemura |
| Abstract |
Due to the recent development of laparoscopic devices, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is the standard procedure for localized renal cell carcinoma. However, some studies have reported postoperative port site metastasis in several cancers. A 68-year-old Asian-Japanese man was referred to our hospital for a further examination of his right renal tumor in 2009. Due to a clinical suspicion of renal cell carcinoma, laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed. The histopathological diagnosis was clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Follow-up computed tomography revealed a mass between the internal oblique muscle of his abdomen and the transverse muscle of his abdomen in 2014. The tumor size gradually increased, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography revealed the accumulation of fludeoxyglucose in that tumor with maximum standardized uptake value of 2.7. Based on these findings, port site recurrence was suspected, and tumor resection was performed in 2017. The pathological diagnosis was metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Here we report a rare case of port site metastasis that was successfully treated 7 years after laparoscopic nephrectomy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 10% |
| Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,464,404
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#1,517
of 3,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,236
of 317,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#22
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 317,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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 62% of its contemporaries.