↓ Skip to main content

Caldwell Luc Surgery: Revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Caldwell Luc Surgery: Revisited
Published in
Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12070-015-0883-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. K. Datta, B. Viswanatha, M. Shree Harsha

Abstract

Caldwell Luc surgery (CWS) is almost 120 years old now and it still enjoys an important place in ENT Surgeons armamentarium. The logic behind this surgery is to replace the diseased and scarred mucosa from maxillary sinus with new mucosa. In the initial period of this long journey the surgery gained many other important indications which also includes approach to surrounding structures which makes us to think if it's really a radical surgery as it is used just an approach to other structure. This was a retrospective study of CWS done during period of 2002-2014 in Sri Venkateshwara ENT Institute and Bowring & Lady Harding Hospital both of these attached to Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute. In this study we have tried to analyze the indications and surgical procedure adapted and complications. Even though it has synonym of radical antrostomy the complications were minor and temporary, except for permanent tooth anesthesia and nasal vestibular stenosis. With reasonable expertise if this surgery is done for proper indication: its worth to face these complications and it's a versatile surgery even today.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 39%
Unspecified 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 18 47%
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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,590,747
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery
#214
of 744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,274
of 266,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 744 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 266,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.