↓ Skip to main content

Microsurgical Reconstruction of Extensive Oncological Scalp Defects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Microsurgical Reconstruction of Extensive Oncological Scalp Defects
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ole Goertz, Leon von der Lohe, Ramón Martinez-Olivera, Adrien Daigeler, Kamran Harati, Tobias Hirsch, Marcus Lehnhardt, Jonas Kolbenschlag

Abstract

Although most small to medium defects of the scalp can be covered by local flaps, large defects or complicating factors, such as a history of radiotherapy, often require a microsurgical reconstruction. Several factors need to be considered in such procedures. A sufficient preoperative planning is based on adequate imaging of the malignancy and a multi-disciplinary concept. Several flaps are available for such reconstructions, of which the latissimus dorsi and anterior-lateral thigh flaps are the most commonly used ones. In very large defects, combined flaps, such as a parascapular/latissimus dorsi flaps, can be highly useful or necessary. The most commonly used recipient vessels for microsurgical scalp reconstructions are the superficial temporal vessels, but various other feasible choices exist. If the concomitant veins are not sufficient, the jugular veins represent a safe back-up alternative but require a vessel interposition or long pedicle. Post-operative care and patient positioning can be difficult in these patients but can be facilitated by various devices. Overall, microsurgical reconstruction of large scalp defects is a feasible undertaking if the mentioned key factors are taken into account.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 17%
Student > Master 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 5 28%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,427,608
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,225
of 274,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 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 2,864 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 51% 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 274,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.