| Title |
Aesthetic Improvements of Skin Grafts in Nasal Tip Reconstruction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, December 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00266-010-9639-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Riml, Heinz Wallner, Lorenz Larcher, Ulrich Amann, Peter Kompatscher |
| Abstract |
Defect closure on the nasal tip subunit still remains challenging. Full-thickness skin transplantation still is used despite its poor outcome in terms of the nasal tip contour caused by lack of dermal tissue. To avoid subsidence deformities associated with nasal tip reconstruction with skin transplants, this study analyzed methods using combined epidermal and dermal replacement. For 30 consecutive patients with a nasal tip defect, a retrospective comparison was made between conventional full-thickness skin transplantation, retroauricular perichondrodermal composite grafts, and skin transplantation supplemented with the collagen-elastin matrix, Matriderm, used as a dermal substitute (n = 10 per study group).The postoperative results were evaluated in a randomized and blind manner by external facial surgeons using the Manchester Scar Scale. The findings showed a marked improvement in nasal tip contour with combined epidermal/dermal replacement without any deterioration in other graft qualities, justifying the additional effort involved in this procedure. Two patients developed fistulae after Matriderm-aided skin transplantation. Therefore, the authors do not consider this a suitable method for nasal tip reconstruction. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 60% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#991
of 1,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,227
of 181,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 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 1,210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. 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 181,720 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 11 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.