1,720,979 research outputs found
Preoperative criteria of incomplete resecability of peritoneal carcinomatosis from non-appendiceal colorectal carcinoma.
No full textComparison of Two Kinds of Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Following Complete Cytoreductive Surgery of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis.
No full textLiver abscess after radiofrequency ablation of tumors in patients with a biliary tract procedure.
No full text
‘‘Natural history’’ of complete cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy
No full textResults of Systematic Second-Look Surgery in Patients atHigh Risk of Developing Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
No full textRobotic vs laparoscopic splenectomy for splenomegaly: A retrospective comparative cohort study
No full textBACKGROUND:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of robotic total splenectomy for splenomegaly, comparing this approach with the laparoscopic technique.
METHODS:
We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent minimally invasive splenectomy for splenomegaly (maximum splenic diameter>15 cm) at our institution between 2000 and 2017.
RESULTS:
A total of 39 patients (27 laparoscopic vs 12 robotic splenectomies) were included in the study. Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (270 min vs 180 min, p = 0.007) (Table 2). Median intraoperative blood loss was 350 ml for laparoscopic procedures while it was 100 ml for the robotic ones (p = 0.032). Conversion to open surgery was required in 4 cases of laparoscopic splenectomy while no conversion were registered in the robotic group. No significant differences were seen in postoperative morbidity and mortality between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Robotic splenectomy for splenomegaly is associated with less blood loss and longer operative times than the laparoscopic procedure
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
