↓ Skip to main content

The Use of Frozen Section in the Excision of Cutaneous Malignancy

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Plastic Surgery, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
The Use of Frozen Section in the Excision of Cutaneous Malignancy
Published in
Annals of Plastic Surgery, October 2013
DOI 10.1097/sap.0b013e31824f21f5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew J. Castley, David R. Theile, Duncan Lambie

Abstract

Frozen section is known to be a valuable tool in the setting of indistinct lesions, lesions in cosmetically or functionally important areas, and those with recurrent or residual tumors. Most non-Mohs surgery studies comparing frozen section with paraffin sections suggest a concordance rate of 85% to 90%, whereas studies with Mohs surgery often suggest concordance rates of 95% to 98%. We do not perform Mohs surgery at our institutions but feel that the accuracy of frozen section is relatively high. Frozen-section data from between 2005 and 2011 was analyzed, and a total of 150 cases was found and assessed. Most of the cases were basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, with most arising in the head and neck region. Half of the resections were for previous incomplete margins with the other half being primary excisions. The frozen section was accurate in 97.7% of the cases when compared with the formal paraffin sections. However, the incomplete rate was higher at 14.8% because of patients with known positive margins on frozen section and the use of less accurate techniques of specimen analysis. We feel that, when used appropriately, frozen section can be a reliable tool and that a negative result should provide the surgeon enough reassurance as to undertake immediate reconstruction.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 11 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 3 25%
Other 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
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 29 September 2013.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#3,084
of 3,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,930
of 219,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#44
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. 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 219,852 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 62 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.