This article compares the perception of health and beauty of patients after exenteration reconstruction with free flap, eyelid-sparing, split-thickness skin graft, or with a prosthesis. Cross-sectional evaluation was performed through a survey sent to all students enrolled at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine. The survey included inquiries about observer comfort, perceived patient health, difficulty of social interactions, and which patient appearance was least bothersome. Responses were scored from 0 to 4 for each method of reconstruction and an orbital prosthesis. A Friedman test was used to compare responses among each method of repair and the orbital prosthesis for each of the four questions, and if this was significant, then post-hoc pairwise comparison was performed with p values adjusted using Bonferroni's method. One hundred and thirty two students responded to the survey and 125 completed all four questions. Favorable response for all questions was highest for the orbital prosthesis and lowest for the split-thickness skin graft. Patient appearance with an orbital prosthesis had significantly higher scores compared to patient appearance with each of the other methods for all questions (p value < 0.0001). Second highest scores were for the free flap, which were higher than eyelid-sparing and significantly higher compared to split-thickness skin grafting (p value: Question 1: < 0.0001; Question 2: 0.0005; Question 3: 0.006; and Question 4: 0.019). The orbital prosthesis was the preferred post-operative appearance for the exenterated socket for each question. Free flap was the preferred appearance for reconstruction without an orbital prosthesis. Split-thickness skin graft was least preferred for all questions.
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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#17,810,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Orbit
#227
of 807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,993
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orbit
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 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 807 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 71% of its contemporaries.
