↓ Skip to main content

Thoracoscopic one-stage lobectomy and diaphragmatic plication for T3 lung cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Thoracoscopic one-stage lobectomy and diaphragmatic plication for T3 lung cancer
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13019-018-0766-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuki Takahashi, Masahiro Miyajima, Taijiro Mishina, Ryunosuke Maki, Makoto Tada, Kodai Tsuruta, Atsushi Watanabe

Abstract

Combined resection of a phrenic nerve is occasionally required in T3 primary lung carcinomas invading the phrenic nerve to completely remove a malignant tumour, resulting in diaphragmatic paralysis. We describe the first case of thoracoscopic lobectomy and diaphragmatic plication as a one-stage surgery for lung cancer invading the phrenic nerve. A 56-year-old woman with a T3N0M0 primary adenosquamous carcinoma in the left upper lobe presented with suspicious invasion to the anterior mediastinal fat tissue and left phrenic nerve and underwent left upper lobectomy, node dissection, and partial resection of the anterior mediastinal fat tissue with the left phrenic nerve. Furthermore, thoracoscopic diaphragmatic plication was performed as a concomitant procedure. The patient's postoperative course was favourable, without any complications, and respiratory function was preserved for 1 year postoperatively. Thoracoscopic one-stage lobectomy and diaphragmatic plication for T3 lung cancer invading the phrenic nerve is effective for preservation of postoperative pulmonary function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 5 56%
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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,419,368
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#294
of 1,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,421
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,251 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 326,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.