↓ Skip to main content

Surgical Application of the Suboccipital Subtonsillar Approach to Reach the Inferior Half of Medulla Oblongata Tumors in Adult Patients

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 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
Surgical Application of the Suboccipital Subtonsillar Approach to Reach the Inferior Half of Medulla Oblongata Tumors in Adult Patients
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, January 2016
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00072
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandra T. Rabadán, Alvaro Campero, Diego Hernández

Abstract

Medulla oblongata (MO) tumors are uncommon in adults. Controversies about their treatment arise regarding the need for histological diagnosis in this eloquent area of the brain, weighing benefits of a reliable diagnosis, and the potential disadvantages of invasive procedures. As a broader variety of pathological findings could be found in this localization, the accurate histopathological definition could not only allow an adequate therapy but also can prevent the disastrous consequences of empiric treatments. There are few publications about their surgical management and all belongs to small retrospective cohorts. In this scenario, we are reporting two patients with exophytic or focal lesions in the inferior half of the medulla, who underwent surgery by suboccipital midline subtonsillar approach. This approach was not specifically described to reach MO before, and we found that the lesions produced a mild elevation of the tonsils providing a wide surgical view from the medulla to the foramen of Luchska laterally, and up to the middle cerebellar peduncle, offering a wide and safe access.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 25%
Student > Bachelor 1 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,434,182
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#919
of 2,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,744
of 395,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 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 2,872 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 395,520 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.