↓ Skip to main content

Positive surgical margins in nephron-sparing surgery: risk factors and therapeutic consequences

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Positive surgical margins in nephron-sparing surgery: risk factors and therapeutic consequences
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-12-252
Pubmed ID
Abstract

The increased use of nephron-sparing surgery to treat localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) lends weight to the question of the value of microscopically positive surgical margins (PSM) in cases with a tumor bed macroscopically free of residual tumor. The aim of this article is to highlight the data available on risk factors for PSM, their clinical relevance, and possible therapeutic consequences. For this purpose, publications on the incidence and relevance of PSM after partial nephrectomy from the last 15 years were examined and evaluated. We summarize that PSM are generally rare, regardless of the surgical procedure, and are seen more often in connection with an imperative indication for nephron-sparing surgery as well as a central tumor location. Most studies describe that PSM lead to a moderate increase in the rate of local relapses, but no study has thus far been able to demonstrate an association with shorter tumor-specific overall survival. Intraoperative frozen section analysis had no positive influence on the risk of definite PSM in most trials. Therefore, we conclude that PSM should definitely be avoided. However, in cases with a macroscopically tumor-free intraoperative resection bed, they should lead to close surveillance of the affected kidney and not to immediate (re)intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unknown 10 34%

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 08 August 2014.
All research outputs
#3,550,434
of 5,036,026 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#546
of 1,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,277
of 126,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#41
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,026 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,107 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 126,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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.