↓ Skip to main content

Submucosal Inferior Turbinoplasty Using a New Continuous Suction Irrigation Method

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Submucosal Inferior Turbinoplasty Using a New Continuous Suction Irrigation Method
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2017.00024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takeo Kanaya, Naoyuki Kohno

Abstract

Numerous surgical techniques for inferior turbinate hypertrophy (ITH) have been reported, each with advantages and disadvantages. Submucosal turbinoplasty with removal of the bony component of the inferior turbinate (IT) is an excellent procedure to expand the nasal cavity. However, this procedure requires a large incision to remove the inferior turbinate bone (ITB) and is associated with hemorrhage, crust formation, and adhesion. A smaller incision would avoid such complications. We developed a continuous suction irrigation method that maintains a clear view of the limited surgical field of the IT. Only a single small incision is needed to insert the rigid endoscope. The surgeon can flush blood with continuous water flow and perform IT surgery without difficulty. We performed this method in 39 cases from January 2016 to January 2017. This video article demonstrates our new submucosal inferior turbinoplasty technique. Submucosal turbinoplasty using a continuous suction irrigation method was performed under general anesthesia. An irrigation-suction straw sheath system was used to create an underwater surgical field. The ITB was removed safely with no severe complications. An expanded common nasal cavity was confirmed postoperatively on computed tomographic images. We resected the ITB safely using a continuous suction irrigation method without difficulty or complications. We believe that this method may become one of the best surgical options for ITH.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 20%
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 5 33%
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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#939
of 2,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,643
of 310,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 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 2,949 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 310,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.