↓ Skip to main content

Submandibular gland excision: long-term clinical outcome in 139 patients operated in a single institution

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Submandibular gland excision: long-term clinical outcome in 139 patients operated in a single institution
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00405-012-2175-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Line Kanstrup Springborg, Martin Nue Møller

Abstract

In transcervical resection of the submandibular gland for benign lesions, only a limited risk of damage to neural structures can be accepted and a cosmetically satisfactory result is mandatory. In this retrospective case series, we evaluated 139 patients operated over a 10-year period and completed long-term clinical follow-up of 113 of these patients after a median of 81 months. In all patients, the operation was effective. We found a 4.3 % risk of reoperation for wound infection or postoperative hematomas and an 18.7 % risk of early paresis of the marginal branch of the facial nerve, which decreased to 2.7 % on long-term follow-up. We found a 4.4 % risk of permanent lingual nerve paresis, and no patients had damage to the hypoglossal nerve. Xerostomia was found in 22.1 % of the patients and could be quantified by the easily performed biscuit test. Only 2.5 % reported an unsatisfactory cosmetic result and all scars were ≤ 6 on the Vancouver Scar Scale. Problems with scarring were more common if there had been postoperative infection. We continue to use the lateral transcervical approach as standard in our institution for patients who cannot be managed by gland-sparing procedures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Other 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Unknown 13 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 09 September 2012.
All research outputs
#18,314,922
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#1,625
of 3,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,468
of 170,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#29
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,036 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 170,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.