↓ Skip to main content

Therapy of auricular keloids: review of different treatment modalities and proposal for a therapeutic algorithm

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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.
Title
Therapy of auricular keloids: review of different treatment modalities and proposal for a therapeutic algorithm
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, July 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00405-007-0383-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Froelich, R. Staudenmaier, N. Kleinsasser, R. Hagen

Abstract

Keloids are abnormal wound reactions of connective tissue. Auricular keloids can develop as a result of, e.g., otoplasty, ear piercing, or skin trauma. A wide variety of therapeutic options exists, including surgery as primary treatment. Furthermore, there are medical, physical, radiotherapeutic and experimental options. The present paper focuses on the different techniques including the therapeutic outcome and quality rating for each chosen pathway. In addition to the experience of the university hospitals, a thorough review of the literature was performed in order to update and compare today's therapeutic options. Surgical techniques are customized to the lesion's specific localization and extent. They may include revision of otoplasty. With medical treatment, established modalities such as steroid injection have to be distinguished from experimental methods like interferon, 5-FU, verapamil, imiquimod, or mitomycin C. Radiation is generally accepted to be effective, especially applied accompanying surgery, but needs to be restricted due to possible side effects. Physical therapy, e.g., pressure in a variety of application modalities, has gained a profound position in the therapy of auricular keloids. The success rates of the different treatment modalities vary markedly, and the number of patients per study is considerably low. Resuming the results, a periodic follow-up and good patients' compliance are mandatory to early realize and treat auricular keloids. However, studies are needed to evaluate accepted and experimental therapies including larger number of patients.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 22%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Materials Science 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#455
of 3,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,534
of 68,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,068 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 68,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.