| Title |
Reconstruction of fingers after electrical injury using lateral tarsal artery flap
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s131815 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Minghua Zhang, Mitao Huang, Pihong Zhang, Pengfei Liang, Licheng Ren, Jizhang Zeng, Jie Zhou, Xiong Liu, Tinghong Xie, Xiaoyuan Huang |
| Abstract |
Electrical injuries to the fingers account for the majority of total severe burns that occur each year. While several types of flaps have been used in covering finger defects, all have limitations or disadvantages. The purpose of this study was to introduce our clinical experiences of using the lateral tarsal artery (LTA) flap to successfully restore fingers after electrical injury. From 2005 to 2012, 10 patients with 14 severe electrical burns to their fingers, including six thumbs and four index and four middle fingers, were treated with LTA flap. The wound size ranged from 2.0×3.0 cm to 3.5×5.0 cm. The flap with free tendon graft was used to repair the tendon defect in four cases, free nerve graft was used to repair the feeling defect in two cases, and the flap with nerve was used to repair the feeling defect in two cases. All the patients were followed up for 3 months to 2 years. All skin flaps adhered successfully and there were no complications. All patients were satisfied with the esthetic appearance and functional outcome of the finger reconstruction. LTA flap is a reliable method to restore fingers after severe electrical injuries. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 45% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,007
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,856
of 327,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 327,299 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.