↓ Skip to main content

Sensation loss after superficial parotidectomy: A prospective controlled multicenter trial

Overview of attention for article published in Head & Neck, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Sensation loss after superficial parotidectomy: A prospective controlled multicenter trial
Published in
Head & Neck, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/hed.24647
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Grosheva, Sami Shabli, Gerd Fabian Volk, Barbara Sommer, Laura Ludwig, Mira Finkensieper, Claus Wittekindt, Jens Peter Klussmann, Orlando Guntinas–Lichius, Dirk Beutner

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of hypoesthesia after superficial parotidectomy depending on preservation of posterior branch of the great auricular nerve (GAN). This prospective, controlled, double blind, multicenter trial included 130 patients. The posterior branch was preserved in 93 patients (GAN group), and ligated in 33 patients (non-GAN group). In 4 patients, GAN status was unknown. Included patients underwent sensory testing (TouchTest) and subjective evaluation at 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Better improvement of sensation was present in the GAN group. After 12 months, 59% of the patients in the GAN-group showed positive test results in the lobule, versus 24% of the non-GAN group (p = .013). Additionally, after 24 months, 71% of the patients in the GAN-group showed a positive test in the antitragus, versus 31% in the non-GAN group (p = .045). Hypoesthesia equally limited quality of life in both groups (all p > .05). Preservation of the posterior branch of the GAN led to significantly better improvement of sensation in the lobule and antitragus, and should be recommended during parotidectomy. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2017.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 33%
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 09 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,382,391
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Head & Neck
#2,997
of 3,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,363
of 421,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Head & Neck
#65
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 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.