↓ Skip to main content

Frontal Bone Remodeling for Gender Reassignment of the Male Forehead: A Gender-Reassignment Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Frontal Bone Remodeling for Gender Reassignment of the Male Forehead: A Gender-Reassignment Surgery
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00266-011-9731-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes Franz Hoenig

Abstract

Gender-reassignment therapy, especially for reshaping of the forehead, can be an effective treatment to improve self-esteem. Contouring of the cranial vault, especially of the forehead, still is a rarely performed surgical procedure for gender reassignment. In addition to surgical bone remodeling, several materials have been used for remodeling and refinement of the frontal bone. But due to shortcomings of autogenous bone material and the disadvantages of polyethylene or methylmethacrylate, hydroxyapatite cement (HAC) composed of tetracalcium phosphate and dicalcium phosphate seems to be an alternative. This study aimed to analyze the clinical outcome after frontal bone remodeling with HAC for gender male-to-female reassignment. The 21 patients in the study were treated for gender reassignment of the male frontal bone using HAC. The average age of these patients was 33.4 years (range, 21-42 years). The average volume of HAC used per patient was 3.83 g. The authors' clinical series demonstrated a satisfactory result. The surgery was easy to perform, and HAC was easy to apply and shape to suit individual needs. Overall satisfaction was very high. Therefore, HAC is a welcome alternative to the traditional use of autogenous bone graft for correction of cranial vault irregularities.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 38%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 63%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Psychology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,672,470
of 13,488,347 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#136
of 760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,695
of 120,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,488,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 760 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. 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 120,090 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.