| Title |
A review of current progress in acquired cholesteatoma management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-014-3291-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chin-Lung Kuo, Wen-Huei Liao, An-Suey Shiao |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to review recent advances in the management of acquired cholesteatoma. All papers referring to acquired cholesteatoma management were identified in Medline via OVID (1948 to December 2013), PubMed (to December 2013), and Cochrane Library (to December 2013). A total of 86 papers were included in the review. Cholesteatoma surgery can be approached using either a canal wall up (CWU) or canal wall down (CWD) mastoidectomy with or without reconstruction of the middle ear cleft. In recent decades, a variety of surgical modifications have been developed including various "synthesis" techniques that combine the merits of CWU and CWD. The application of transcanal endoscopy has also recently gained popularity; however, difficulties associated with this approach remain, such as the need for one-handed surgery, the inability to provide continuous irrigation/suction, and limitations regarding endoscopic accessibility to the mastoid cavity. Additionally, several recent studies have reported successes in the application of laser-assisted cholesteatoma surgery, which overcomes the conflicting goals of eradicating disease and the preservation of hearing. Nevertheless, the risk of residual disease remains a challenge. Each of the techniques examined in this study presents pros and cons regarding final outcomes, such that any pronouncements regarding the superiority of one technique over another cannot yet be made. Flexibility in the selection of surgical methods according to the context of individual cases is essential in optimizing the outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 64% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Psychology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 18 | 24% |
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 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,727,479
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,468
of 3,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,467
of 249,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#31
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 249,473 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 56% of its contemporaries.