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
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
3D correction of AIS in braces designed using CAD/CAM and FEM: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13013-017-0128-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nikita Cobetto, Carl-Éric Aubin, Stefan Parent, Soraya Barchi, Isabelle Turgeon, Hubert Labelle |
| Abstract |
Recent studies showed that finite element model (FEM) combined to CAD/CAM improves the design of braces for the conservative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), using 2D measurements from in-brace radiographs. We aim to assess the immediate effectiveness on curve correction in all three planes of braces designed using CAD/CAM and numerical simulation compared to braces designed with CAD/CAM only. SRS standardized criteria for bracing were followed to recruit 48 AIS patients who were randomized into two groups. For both groups, 3D reconstructions of the spine and patient's torso, respectively built from bi-planar radiographs and surface topography, were obtained and braces were designed using the CAD/CAM approach. For the test group, 3D reconstructions of the spine and patient's torso were additionally used to generate a personalized FEM to simulate and iteratively improve the brace design with the objective of curve correction maximization in three planes and brace material minimization. For the control group (CtrlBraces), average Cobb angle prior to bracing was 29° (thoracic, T) and 25° (lumbar, L) with the planes of maximal curvature (PMC) respectively oriented at 63° and 57° on average with respect to the sagittal plane. Average apical axial rotation prior to bracing was 7° (T) and 9° (L). For the test group (FEMBraces), initial Cobb angles were 33° (T) and 28° (L) with the PMC at 68° (T) and 56° (L) and average apical axial rotation prior to bracing at 9° (T and L). On average, FEMBraces were 50% thinner and had 20% less covering surface than CtrlBraces while reducing T and L curves by 47 and 48%, respectively, compared to 25 and 26% for CtrlBraces. FEMBraces corrected apical axial rotation by 46% compared to 30% for CtrlBraces. The combination of numerical simulation and CAD/CAM approach allowed designing more efficient braces in all three planes, with the advantages of being lighter than standard CAD/CAM braces. Bracing in AIS may be improved in 3D by the use of this simulation platform. This study is ongoing to recruit more cases and to analyze the long-term effect of bracing. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02285621. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Researcher | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 41% |
| Engineering | 17 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
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 25 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,470,944
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#61
of 97 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,957
of 316,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 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 97 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 316,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.