↓ Skip to main content

Does the location of placement of meniscal sutures have a clinical effect in the all-inside repair of meniscocapsular tears?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Does the location of placement of meniscal sutures have a clinical effect in the all-inside repair of meniscocapsular tears?
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13018-017-0591-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uğur Tiftikçi, Sancar Serbest

Abstract

Meniscocapsular separation (MCS) is a lesion of the area which is attached from the peripheral section of the meniscus to the capsule and is seen less often than other meniscus injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate which of the different side applications of all-inside MCS repair of the meniscus was better in respect of clinical and functional results. In this retrospective study, 53 patients with MCS pattern in their knee joints were treated with arthroscopic meniscus repair made with the all-inside method. The patients were separated into three groups according to the surface from which the fixation was applied: group 1, from the femoral joint surface of the meniscus (n = 17), group 2, from the tibial joint surface of the meniscus (n = 21) and group 3, from the femoral and tibial joint surfaces of the meniscus (n = 15). The participants were assessed using the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee Scoring (IKDC), Lysholm Knee Scale, Tegner Activity Level Scale, Barrett criteria and Kellgren-Lawrence classification after a 45 ± 12.1 months (range, 24-70 months) follow-up. Postoperatively, all the groups exhibited significantly increased subjective IKDC score, Lysholm score and Tegner activity score compared with their preoperative results (p < 0.001). At 6 months postoperatively, a statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score and Lysholm score with group 2 showing better results than the other groups (p < 0.001). At the final follow-up examination, no statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of the subjective IKDC score, Tegner activity score or Lysholm score. A statistically significantly lower level of pulling and stress sensation was determined in group 2 (p < 0.001). MCS repair made with the all-inside method is successful clinically and functionally and in respect of MRI findings. In addition, it was seen that the fixation method applied from the tibial surface of the meniscus does not disturb the anatomic position of the meniscus in MCS repair. The tibial joint surface is the most appropriate area for suturation in all-inside repair of MCS. Level IV.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 13 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Unknown 15 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,898,929
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#918
of 1,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,781
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#22
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,397 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.