2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2017.10.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reconstructive methods in Mohs micrographic surgery in Uruguay: A bidirectional descriptive cohort analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One reason could be that 60% of these patients had a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm), possibly due to a larger primary tumor lesion associated with a poorer cosmetic outcome. 34 However, patients with a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm) did not show significantly more appearance-related psychosocial distress over time compared to patients with a smaller surgical defect (i.e., ≤1.5 cm). Additionally, patients with a central lesion appeared to have more appearance-related psychosocial distress over time, which is consistent with literature stating that the nose is an independent predictor of appearance-related psychosocial distress.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One reason could be that 60% of these patients had a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm), possibly due to a larger primary tumor lesion associated with a poorer cosmetic outcome. 34 However, patients with a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm) did not show significantly more appearance-related psychosocial distress over time compared to patients with a smaller surgical defect (i.e., ≤1.5 cm). Additionally, patients with a central lesion appeared to have more appearance-related psychosocial distress over time, which is consistent with literature stating that the nose is an independent predictor of appearance-related psychosocial distress.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Moreover, patients with a peripherally localized defect showed more appearance‐related psychosocial distress at baseline. One reason could be that 60% of these patients had a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm), possibly due to a larger primary tumor lesion associated with a poorer cosmetic outcome 34 . However, patients with a larger surgical defect (i.e., ≥1.5 cm) did not show significantly more appearance‐related psychosocial distress over time compared to patients with a smaller surgical defect (i.e., ≤1.5 cm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%