↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Importance of perforating vessels in nipple-sparing mastectomy: an anatomical description

Overview of attention for article published in Breast cancer targets and therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Importance of perforating vessels in nipple-sparing mastectomy: an anatomical description
Published in
Breast cancer targets and therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/bctt.s78705
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Amanti, Valeria Vitale, Augusto Lombardi, Stefano Maggi, Laura Bersigotti, Gianni Lazzarin, Emiliano Nuccetelli, Camilla Romano, Laura Campanella, Lara Cristiano, Alessandra Bartoloni, Giuseppe Argento

Abstract

Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), understood as an oncologically valid procedure, is relatively new, and is an evolution of traditional mastectomy, particularly in relation to breast-conserving surgery. The anterior perforating branches are responsible for the cutaneous vascularization of the breast skin, and their preservation is a fundamental step to avoid possible postoperative necrosis. Therefore, evaluating the potential complications of cancer-related reconstructive surgical procedures such as NSM, both the distance of the tumoral lesion from the skin and the surgical incision site should be carefully considered. The preferred site of incision corresponds to the inframammary fold or possibly the periareolar area. We retrospectively reviewed 113 patients who underwent NSM from January 2005 to October 2012 to evaluate skin complications. The anatomical study was performed by magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Only one of the 113 women who had undergone a NSM procedure had total necrosis (0.9%) and six patients had partial necrosis (5.8%) of the nipple-areola complex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 48%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,254,977
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#59
of 324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,115
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast cancer targets and therapy
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them