↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laparoscopic surgery for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters


8 Dimensions

Readers on

147 Mendeley
Laparoscopic surgery for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012302.pub2
Pubmed ID

Lindsay Robertson, Sandip Nandhra


Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilatation of the infradiaphragmatic aorta that is equal to or greater than 30 mm or a local dilatation of equal to or greater than 50% compared to the expected normal diameter of the artery. AAAs rarely occur in individuals under 50 years of age, but thereafter the prevalence dramatically increases with age, with men at a six-fold greater risk of developing an AAA than women. Prevalence of AAA has been reported to range from 1.3% in women aged 65 to 80 years to between 4% and 7.7% in men aged 65 to 80 years.There is evidence that the risk of rupture increases as the aneurysm diameter increases from 50 mm to 60 mm. People with AAAs over 55 mm in diameter are therefore generally referred for consideration of repair, as the risk of rupture exceeds the risk of repair. The traditional treatment for AAA is open surgical repair (OSR) which involves a large abdominal incision and is associated with a significant risk of complications. Two less invasive procedures have recently become more widely used: endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and laparoscopic repair. EVAR is carried out through sheaths inserted in the femoral artery in the groin: thereafter, a stent graft is placed within the aneurysm sac under radiological image guidance and anchored in place to form a new channel for blood flow. Laparoscopic repair involves the use of a laparoscope which is inserted through small cuts in the abdomen and the synthetic graft is sewn in place to replace the weakened area of the aorta. Laparoscopic AAA repair falls into two categories: hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS), where an incision is made to allow the surgeon's hand to assist in the repair; and total laparoscopic surgery (TLS). Both EVAR and laparoscopic repair are favourable over OSR as they are minimally invasive, less painful, associated with fewer complications and lower mortality rate and have a shorter duration of hospital stay.Current evidence suggests that elective laparoscopic AAA repair has a favourable safety profile comparable with that of EVAR, with low conversion rates as well as similar mortality and morbidity rates. As a result, it has been suggested that elective laparoscopic AAA repair may have a role in treating those patients for whom EVAR is unsuitable. To assess the effects of laparoscopic surgery for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.The primary objective of this review was to assess the perioperative mortality and operative time of laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) compared to traditional open surgical repair or EVAR. The secondary objective was to assess complication rates, all-cause mortality (> 30 days), hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, conversion and re-intervention rates, and quality of life associated with laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair compared to traditional open surgical repair or EVAR. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched August 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 7). In addition the CIS searched trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles retrieved by electronic searches for additional citations. Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in which patients with an AAA underwent elective laparoscopic repair (total laparoscopic repair or hand-assisted laparoscopic repair) compared with either open surgical repair or EVAR. Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for inclusion by at least two review authors. One randomised controlled trial with a total of 100 male participants was included in the review. The trial compared hand-assisted laparoscopic repair with EVAR and provided results for in-hospital mortality, operative time, length of hospital stay and lower limb ischaemia. The included study did not report on the other pre-planned outcomes of this review. No in-hospital deaths occurred in the study. Hand-associated laparoscopic repair was associated with a longer operative time (MD 53.00 minutes, 95% CI 36.49 to 69.51) than EVAR. The incidence of lower limb ischaemia was similar between the two treatment groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.34). The mean length of hospital stay was 4.2 days and 3.4 days in the hand-assisted laparoscopic repair and EVAR groups respectively but standard deviations were not reported and therefore it was not possible to independently test the statistical significance of this result. The quality of evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to the inclusion of one small study; and wide confidence intervals and indirectness due to the study including male participants only. No study compared laparoscopic repair (total or hand-assisted) with open surgical repair or total laparoscopic surgical repair with EVAR. There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic (total and hand-assisted) surgical repair of AAA versus open surgical repair or EVAR, because only one small randomised trial was eligible for inclusion in this review. High-quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 6%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 44 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 43 29%

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 May 2017.
All research outputs
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 263,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 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 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 263,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.