↓ Skip to main content

Plastic Surgery in the Multimodal Treatment Concept of Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Influence of Radiation, Chemotherapy, and Isolated Limb Perfusion on Plastic Surgery Techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Plastic Surgery in the Multimodal Treatment Concept of Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Influence of Radiation, Chemotherapy, and Isolated Limb Perfusion on Plastic Surgery Techniques
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00268
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolai Kapalschinski, Ole Goertz, Kamran Harati, Maximilian Kueckelhaus, Jonas Kolbenschlag, Marcus Lehnhardt, Tobias Hirsch

Abstract

Surgical intervention is the mainstay treatment for soft tissue sarcomas (STSs). The significance of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies, such as chemotherapy, radiation, and isolated limb perfusion, remains under controversial discussion. The goal of this review is to discuss the effects of the aforementioned treatment modalities and their timing of application in plastic surgery techniques. Furthermore, options of reconstruction in cases of complications caused by adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies are discussed. When compared with adjuvant radiation, neoadjuvant treatment can reduce negative side effects such as fibrosis and edema because radioderma can be removed during the subsequent surgical procedure. Furthermore, there have not been any reports of negative effects of neoadjuvant radiation on microsurgical procedures. However, the dose of neoadjuvant radiation correlates with increased risks of impaired wound healing postoperatively. Thus, a patient-specific approach to decide whether radiation should be performed adjuvant or neoadjuvant is necessary. Preoperative irradiation should be considered in cases where functional structures are exposed after tumor resection, in order to ensure the best possible functionality. Adjuvant radiation should be considered in all other cases because of its known superior wound healing. As for chemotherapy, no negative influence of its use adjuvant or neoadjuvant to reconstructive procedures, such as local or free flaps, has been reported. Lastly, small sample size studies have not shown increased risks of microsurgical failure or wound complications after isolated limb perfusion. The findings of this review suggest that the chronological order of the discussed therapeutic approaches is not a decisive factor in the surgical outcome of reconstructive procedures for STS.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 69%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
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 01 December 2015.
All research outputs
#15,517,312
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#4,855
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,020
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#21
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 395,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 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.