↓ Skip to main content

A case of parosteal osteosarcoma with a rare complication of myositis ossificans

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A case of parosteal osteosarcoma with a rare complication of myositis ossificans
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1477-7819-10-260
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Silvia Spinelli, Carlo Perisano, Carlo Della Rocca, Jendrick Hardes, Carlo Barone, Carlo Fabbriciani, Giulio Maccauro

Abstract

We report the case of a parosteal osteosarcoma of the distal ulna, treated with wide resection without reconstruction. The patient developed lung metastasis and a mass in the interosseus membrane of the forearm proximally to the osteotomy. The lung mass was found to be a metastasis from parosteal osteosarcoma and the biopsy of the forearm mass revealed a myositis ossificans. The suspicion of a recurrence of parosteal osteosarcoma, already metastatic, led to a second wide resection with no reconstruction. A slice of the radial cortex was taken during this second procedure. From a histological point of view, good margins were achieved and diagnosis of myositis ossificans was confirmed. Two months later, a radius fracture occurred and a synthesis, with plate and screws, as added with poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) to reconstruct the bone loss, was performed. Indication of the reconstructive technique and the complication after distal ulna resection in oncologic surgery are discussed in this paper.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 25%
Student > Postgraduate 2 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 75%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 December 2012.
All research outputs
#14,738,780
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#518
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,964
of 277,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#20
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 277,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.