↓ Skip to main content

Use of modified lateral upper arm free flap for reconstruction of soft tissue defect after resection of oral cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Face Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 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
Use of modified lateral upper arm free flap for reconstruction of soft tissue defect after resection of oral cancer
Published in
Head & Face Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13005-016-0105-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xu-Dong Yang, Su-Feng Zhao, Qian Zhang, Yu-Xin Wang, Wei Li, Xiao-Wei Hong, Qin-Gang Hu

Abstract

To evaluate the suitability of a modified lateral upper arm free flap (LAFF) for reconstruction of soft tissue defects after resection of oral cancer. Eighteen cases of soft tissue defect repair performed between January 2011 and December 2013 using a modified LAFF after resection of oral cancer were reviewed. The design and harvest of the LAFF, the reconstruction procedure, and postoperative morbidity were reviewed and evaluated over a follow-up period of at least 12 months. The overall flap survival was 94.4 % (17/18 patients). A broad scar at the donor site was the most common morbidity, but patients did not report dissatisfaction with the scar because they could easily cover it. All wounds at the donor site achieved primary recovery. One case of flap loss was repaired with a radial forearm free flap. One case complicated by diabetes mellitus involved infection of the flap with one-third of the flap becoming necrotic. This flap survived after removal of the necrotic tissue. In one other case, fat liquefactive necrosis (1.5 × 1.0 cm) occurred in the flap on the tip of the tongue, and this flap survived after debridement. Overall, the shape and function of the reconstructed tissues were well restored, and there was no severe morbidity at the donor site in any case. The modified LAFF was safe and reliable for the reconstruction of soft tissue defects after resection of oral cancer.

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.
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 > Bachelor 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Design 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 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 23 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Head & Face Medicine
#183
of 334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,818
of 396,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Face Medicine
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 334 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 396,346 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 13 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.