↓ Skip to main content

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 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
Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matched analysis
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13019-018-0727-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haiqi He, Qifei Wu, Zhe Wang, Yong Zhang, Nanzheng Chen, Junke Fu, Guangjian Zhang

Abstract

Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) was shown to be effective in reducing the morbidity and was adopted increasingly. The robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) remains in the initial stage of application. This study evaluated its safety and feasibility by comparing short-term outcomes of RAMIE and video-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (VAMIE). Between March 2016 and December 2017, 115 consecutive patients underwent RAMIE or VAMIE at our institute. The baseline characteristics, pathological data and short-term outcomes of these two group patients were collected and compared. RAMIE patients were propensity score matched with VAMIE patients for a more accurate comparison. Matching based on propensity scores produced 27 patients in each group. After propensity score matching (PSM), the baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The operation time in RAMIE group was significantly longer than that in VAMIE group (349 and 294 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The blood loss volume in RAMIE group was less than that in VAMIE group (119 and 158 ml, respectively), but with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.062). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the mean number of dissected lymph nodes (20 and 19, respectively; P = 0.420), postoperative hospital stay (13.8 and 12.7 days, respectively; P = 0.548), the rate of overall complications (37.0 and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.776) and the rates of detailed complications between the two groups. The short-term outcomes of RAMIE is comparable to VAMIE, demonstrating safety and feasibility of RAMIE.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 8 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Unknown 9 31%

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 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,322,718
of 12,985,916 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#111
of 490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,950
of 271,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,985,916 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 490 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 271,116 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.