↓ Skip to main content

Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Versus Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Plastic Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Versus Free Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap
Published in
Annals of Plastic Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1097/sap.0000000000000936
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Abdominal based breast reconstruction exists in a continuum from pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap to deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flap. DIEP flap has the advantage of complete rectus abdominis sparing during harvest, thus decreasing donor site morbidity. Aim of this study is to determine whether the surgical advantages of the DIEP flap impact postoperative outcomes versus the free TRAM flap (fTRAM). We reviewed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2010-2011) for all cases of DIEP and fTRAM breast reconstruction. Inclusion criteria were: female sex and patients undergoing DIEP or fTRAM total breast reconstruction. Male sex was excluded from the analysis. We examined demographic characteristics, hospital setting, insurance information, patient income, comorbidities, postoperative complications (including reoperation, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolus, wound infection, and flap loss), length of stay, and total charges (TCs). Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors of increased length of stay and TCs. Fifteen thousand eight hundred thirty-six cases were identified. Seventy percent were white, 97% were insured, and 83% of patients were treated in an academic teaching hospital setting. No mortalities were recorded. The DIEP cohort was more likely to be obese (P = 0.001). Free TRAM cohort was more likely to suffer pneumonia (P < 0.001; odds ratio [OR], 3.7), wound infection (P = 0.001; OR, 1.7), and wound dehiscence (P < 0.001; OR, 4.3). Type of reconstruction did not appear to affect risk of revision, hemorrhage, hematoma, seroma, or flap loss. Total charges were higher in the DIEP group (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that fTRAM was an independent risk factor for increased length of stay (P < 0.001; OR, 1.6), and DIEP was an independent risk factor for increased TCs (P < 0.01; OR, 1.5). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. The fTRAM cohort was more likely to develop surgical site complications and have an increased length of stay, but TCs were higher for the DIEP group.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

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.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Lecturer 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 05 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,107,886
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#86
of 3,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,096
of 324,539 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Plastic Surgery
#4
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,909 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 324,539 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.