| Title |
Superselective neck dissection: rationale, indications, and results
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-012-2344-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos Suárez, Juan P. Rodrigo, K. Thomas Robbins, Vinidh Paleri, Carl E. Silver, Alessandra Rinaldo, Jesus E. Medina, Marc Hamoir, Alvaro Sanabria, Vanni Mondin, Robert P. Takes, Alfio Ferlito |
| Abstract |
It has been established that an appropriately indicated selective neck dissection can achieve the same oncologic results as more extensive dissections. An even more modified selective neck dissection, termed superselective neck dissection, involves the compartmental removal of the fibrofatty tissue contents within the defined boundaries of two or fewer contiguous neck levels. Evidence from retrospective studies suggests that superselective neck dissection (SSND) is oncologically sound for two indications: elective treatment of the clinically N0 neck and salvage treatment of persistent lymph node disease after chemoradiotherapy. While there is broader support for the former scenario, evidence that SSND may constitute optimal treatment in the latter is in conformity with the trend toward developing surgical techniques that provide better functional outcomes without compromising efficacy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 17% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Professor | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 75% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,345,186
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,563
of 3,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,640
of 299,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,712 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 299,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.