1,720,970 research outputs found
Reconstructive options in partial maxillectomy : temporalis muscle flap plus bone vs free flaps
No full text
Amputazione traumatica del labbro e dell’orecchio reimpianto microchirurgico e ricostruzione immediata
No full text
Il lembo di FAMM nella ricostruzione dei difetti limitati della regione orale e periorale
No full textThe Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy approach to nasal septum perforation repair : authors’ experience
No full textThe goal of nasal septal perforation repair is to restore the normal physiology of the nose. The surgical approaches described in the literature include closed (intranasal access, possibly using nasal endoscopy), open (open rhinoseptoplasty and enlarged version), and degloving approaches. The Le Fort I osteotomy, widely used as an approach for skull base tumour removal, has not been described as an access for closing a septum perforation surgically. The authors found that this approach provides an excellent surgical exposure and a low incidence of complications; this surgical technique is quick and easy if performed by a team with experience in orthognathic surgery. This article describes the use of the Le Fort I maxillary osteotomy as an access for nasal septum reconstruction in the treatment of two patients at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of the Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi in Milan (Italy). The septal defects had diameters of 7 and 16 mm. The septal perforation repair included harvesting a single-pedicle mucoperiosteal flap derived from the nasal floor without autogenous or heterologous tissue interposition. Nasal endoscopy showed complete healing in one patient and 75% closure in the other. Both maintained their preoperative dental occlusion and neither has developed a nasal synechia. The discomfort, expressed on a VAS scale from 0 to 10, was reduced from 10 to 3 in one patient and from 7 to 0 in the other. The follow-up was for 9 months
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
