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.
X Demographics
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Compare the clinical value of two minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-023-06291-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin-Yi Feng, Wen-Bin Xu, Wu-Ji You, Gang Rui, Qing-Xiang Wang |
| Abstract |
To compare the clinical value between locating radial nerve (RN) guided by Color Doppler ultrasonography and posterior antebrachial cutaneous nerve (PACN) in the posterior humeral approach. The five fresh adult cadavers (ten upper arms) were selected to compare the two methods of locating the RN in the posterior humeral approach (guided by ultrasound and PACN) by measuring the operation time, the length of incision, and the area of subcutaneous free. And the comparison between the two groups was statistically analyzed by paired t-test. The results of this study demonstrated that the length of incision and the area of subcutaneous free in the ultrasound group were smaller than that in the PACN group (P < 0.05), while the operation time was just the opposite (P < 0.05). However, after excluding the time of ultrasound location, the operation time in the ultrasound group was shorter than that in the PANC group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The RN can be quickly and safely exposed by both methods. The ultrasound approach requires a long learning curve, but is more minimally invasive and can help determine whether the intraoperative nerve is compressed by the plate. And the PACN method requires a longer incision and a wider area of subcutaneous free, while specialized equipment and professional training for surgeons are not required. In a word, these two methods have advantages and disadvantages, so they should be selected based on the exact situation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,835,143
of 23,532,144 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,533
of 4,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,989
of 344,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#29
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,532,144 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 344,829 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 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.