↓ Skip to main content

Gastric stump carcinoma as a long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy: report of two cases and review of the English literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Gastric stump carcinoma as a long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy: report of two cases and review of the English literature
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12876-017-0682-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morgane Bouquot, Safi Dokmak, Louise Barbier, Jérôme Cros, Philippe Levy, Alain Sauvanet

Abstract

Gastric stump carcinoma is an exceptional and poorly known long-term complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Two patients developed gastric stump carcinoma 19 and 10 years after pancreaticoduodenectomy for malignant ampulloma and total pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, respectively. Both patients had pT4 signet-ring cell carcinoma involving the gastrojejunostomy site that was revealed by bleeding or obstruction. Patient 1 is alive and remains disease-free 36 months after completion gastrectomy. Patient 2 presented with peritoneal carcinomatosis and died after palliative surgery. We identified only 3 others cases in the English literature. Prolonged biliary reflux might be the most important risk factor of gastric stump carcinoma following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Its incidence might increase in the future due to prolonged survival observed after pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign and premalignant lesions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 25%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Student > Postgraduate 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 10 63%
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 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,432,953
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#842
of 1,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#263,989
of 437,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#18
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 437,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 51% of its contemporaries.