↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes of cement beads and cement spacers in the treatment of bone defects associated with post-traumatic osteomyelitis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Outcomes of cement beads and cement spacers in the treatment of bone defects associated with post-traumatic osteomyelitis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1614-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xu-sheng Qiu, Yi-xin Chen, Xiao-yang Qi, Hong-fei Shi, Jun-fei Wang, Jin Xiong

Abstract

Cement spacers (Masquelet technique) have traditionally been used for the treatment of segmental bone defects. However, no reports have used cement spacers for the treatment of small/partial segmental bone defects associated with osteomyelitis and compared the outcomes with cement beads. We retrospectively analysed 40 patients with post-traumatic osteomyelitis of the tibia who underwent treatment, which was performed in two stages. In the first stage, thorough debridement was performed, and bone defects were filled with either antibiotic-impregnated cement beads (bead group, 18 patients) or spacers (spacer group, 22 patients). In the second stage, the cement beads or spacers were removed (for the spacer group, the induced membrane formed by the spacer was preserved) and the bone defects were filled with cancellous autografts. All patients in the bead group had small/partial segmental bone defects after debridement, while 3 patients in the spacer group had large/segmental bone defects. The mean volume of bone defects of the spacer group (40.4 cm(3)) was significantly larger than that of the bead group (32.4 cm(3)). The infection control rate (88.9%,16/18 vs 90.9%, 20/22), bone healing time (8.5 months vs 7.5 months) and complication rates (22.2%, 4/18 vs 27.2%, 6/22) were comparable between bead group and spacer group. The results of this study suggest that cement spacers may have an infection control rate comparable to cement beads in the treatment of bone defects associated with post-traumatic osteomyelitis. Furthermore, cement spacers could be used for the reconstruction of small/partial segmental bone defects as well as for large/segmental bone defects, whereas cement beads were not suitable for the reconstruction of large/segmental bone defects.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Lecturer 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 14 24%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Chemistry 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 23 39%
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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,818,022
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,296
of 4,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,589
of 317,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#52
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 317,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.