↓ Skip to main content

Robotic Surgery in Gynecology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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 Surgery in Gynecology
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Bouquet de Joliniere, Armando Librino, Jean-Bernard Dubuisson, Fathi Khomsi, Nordine Ben Ali, Anis Fadhlaoui, J. M. Ayoubi, Anis Feki

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be considered as the greatest surgical innovation over the past 30 years. It revolutionized surgical practice with well-proven advantages over traditional open surgery: reduced surgical trauma and incision-related complications, such as surgical-site infections, postoperative pain and hernia, reduced hospital stay, and improved cosmetic outcome. Nonetheless, proficiency in MIS can be technically challenging as conventional laparoscopy is associated with several limitations as the two-dimensional (2D) monitor reduction in-depth perception, camera instability, limited range of motion, and steep learning curves. The surgeon has a low force feedback, which allows simple gestures, respect for tissues, and more effective treatment of complications. Since the 1980s, several computer sciences and robotics projects have been set up to overcome the difficulties encountered with conventional laparoscopy, to augment the surgeon's skills, achieve accuracy and high precision during complex surgery, and facilitate widespread of MIS. Surgical instruments are guided by haptic interfaces that replicate and filter hand movements. Robotically assisted technology offers advantages that include improved three-dimensional stereoscopic vision, wristed instruments that improve dexterity, and tremor canceling software that improves surgical precision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 22%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 23 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 28 35%
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 13 August 2019.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#923
of 2,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,409
of 298,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 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 2,888 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 298,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.