↓ Skip to main content

Reconstructive Options for Oncologic Posterior Trunk Defects: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Reconstructive Options for Oncologic Posterior Trunk Defects: A Review
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2016.00051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Björn Behr, Johannes M. Wagner, Christoph Wallner, Kamran Harati, Marcus Lehnhardt, Adrien Daigeler

Abstract

After oncological tumor resections at the back, large defects can remain that depending on the size and location may represent reconstructive challenges to plastic surgeons. Flap selection includes the entire armamentarium of coverage, including transposition flaps, perforator flaps, pedicled muscle flaps, and free flaps. Most defects can be closed and reconstructed with local or pedicled muscle flaps. In our hands, sufficient closure could be obtained with all techniques, except the latissimus dorsi turn-over flap. Thereupon, an algorithm for closure of posterior trunk defects related to the anatomical region is proposed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 62%
Unknown 10 38%
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 08 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,313
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#232,423
of 313,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#65
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 313,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.