↓ Skip to main content

How to Avoid Earlobe Deformation in Face Lift

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
How to Avoid Earlobe Deformation in Face Lift
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00266-015-0467-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sulamanidze Marlen, Sulamanidze Constantin, Sulamanidze Georgii

Abstract

During the postoperative period following a facelift, caudal extension of the earlobe secondary to pulling of the submandibular tissues can occur. This earlobe shape, often termed "pixie ear", is unnatural, and patients often request its repair. The objective of this study was to design a modified facelift technique that provides natural, aesthetically acceptable, and long-lasting results. In patients with pixie ear secondary to classical rhytidectomy, we omitted the incision around the earlobe; instead, we interrupted it in front of the earlobe and finished it behind the earlobe, without fully dissecting the earlobe from its base. We then performed all required stages of the facelift: detachment of the cellulocutaneous flap, manipulation of the superficial musculoaponeurotic system, establishment of homeostasis, lifting of the cutaneous flap, and finally suturing of the retained edges of the skin onto the cartilage matrix of the pinna. The above-described operative technique was used in 24 patients from October 2008 to January 2014. Long-lasting projected results were achieved in each case. The modified facelift technique described herein can be used to perform facelifts with a pre-existing pixie ear, as well as to prevent the development of pixie ear. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 23%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Psychology 1 8%
Unknown 7 54%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,816,612
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#670
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,458
of 266,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 266,605 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.