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 |
Clinical application of the paraspinal erector approach for spinal canal decompression in upper lumber burst fractures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-014-0105-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xi-Yan Xu, Zheng-Jian Yan, Qing Ma, Liang Chen, Zhen-Yong Ke, Fu Chen, Yun Chen, Lei Chu, Zhong-Liang Deng |
| Abstract |
ObjectivePercutaneous pedicle screw fixation is commonly used for upper lumber burst fractures. The direct decompression remains challenging with this minimally invasive surgery. The objective was to evaluate a novel paraspinal erector approach for effective and direct decompression in patients with canal compromise and neurologic deficit.MethodPatients (n =21) with neurological deficiency and Denis B type upper lumbar burst fracture were enrolled in the study, including 14 cases in the L1 and 7 cases in the L2. The patients underwent removal of bone fragments from the spinal canal through intervertebral foramen followed by short-segment fixation. Evaluations included surgery-related, such as duration of surgery and blood loss, and 12-month follow-up, such as the kyphotic angle, the height ratio of the anterior edge of the vertebra, the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Frankel scores.ResultsAll patients achieved direct spinal canal decompression using the paraspinal erector approach followed by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. The mean operation time (SD) was 173 (23) min, and the mean (SD) blood loss was 301 (104) ml. Significant improvement was noted in the kyphotic angle, 26.2¿±¿8.7 prior to operation versus 9.1¿±¿4.7 at 12 months after operation (p <0.05); the height ratio of the anterior edge of the injured vertebra, 60¿±¿16% versus 84¿±¿9% (p <0.05); and the ratio of sagittal canal compromise, 46.5¿±¿11.4% versus 4.3¿±¿3.6% (p <0.05). Significant improvements in VAS (7.3¿±¿1.2 vs. 1.9¿±¿0.7, p <0.05), ODI (86.7¿±¿5.8 vs. 16.7¿±¿5.1, p <0.05), and Frankel scores were also noted.ConclusionsThe paraspinal erector approach was effective for direct spinal canal decompression with minimal injury in the paraspinal muscles or spine. Significant improvements in spinal function and prognostics were achieved after the percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,060,060
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#83
of 1,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,332
of 258,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,365 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 258,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.