↓ Skip to main content

Robotic low anterior resection plus transanal natural orifice specimen extraction in a patient with situs inversus totalis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Surgery, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Robotic low anterior resection plus transanal natural orifice specimen extraction in a patient with situs inversus totalis
Published in
BMC Surgery, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12893-018-0394-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beibei Cui, Sanlin Lei, Kuijie Liu, Hongliang Yao

Abstract

Situs inversus totalis (SIT) refers to an unusual condition involving reversal of abdominal and thoracic viscera, with an incidence rate of 1/5000-20,000 adults. Minimally invasive surgeries for SIT patients are technically challenging, while the surgical experience for SIT patients is quite limited. A 61-year-old man, previously diagnosed as SIT, came to our hospital for 6 months history of hematochezia and altered bowel habit. A diagnosis of rectal cancer was made in view of colonoscopic biopsy which confirmed an irregular circumferential lump of well differentiated adenocarcinoma at 10 cm from the anal verge. The computed tomography contrast-enhanced (thorax + abdomen + pelvis) scan revealed a total transposition of abdominal and thoracic organs and an enhanced eccentric mass of rectal but with no evidence of distant metastasis. Robotic low anterior resection (LAR) plus transanal natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) was performed after obtaining informed consent. The procedure was performed successfully and the patient convalesced nicely without any complications. The postoperative pathological diagnosis revealed a 4x4x0.6 cm3 moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma and circumferential clearance. Robotic LAR plus transanal NOSE for rectal cancer patients with SIT can be performed safely and may be an effective approach in contrast to open or laparoscopic approach, despite the unconventional anatomy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 20%
Unspecified 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Librarian 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 44%
Unspecified 3 12%
Psychology 1 4%
Unknown 10 40%
Attention Score in Context

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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,647,094
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Surgery
#631
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,383
of 333,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Surgery
#12
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 333,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.