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 |
Differential efficacy of subtalar fusion with three operative approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13018-014-0115-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheng-song Yuan, Xiao-kang Tan, Bing-Hua Zhou, Jun-peng Liu, Xu Tao, Kang-Lai Tang |
| Abstract |
BackgroundThere are many existing operative approaches for subtalar fusion; however, no optional strategy of operative approach has been developed yet. This study aimed to analyze the differential clinical efficacy of subtalar fusion with three operative approaches.MethodsThe clinical data of 102 patients from April 2008 to April 2012 were analyzed prospectively. These patients were divided into three groups with the random number table: group A, group B, and group C. The following parameters were compared among three groups: effective exposure area and exposure time of subtalar joint, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative complications, fusion time, fusion rate, AOFAS score and VAS score before and after operation.ResultsIn the exposure area score, there was no statistically significant difference between group A and group C (P >0.05) ,but with a statistically significant difference between group A/C and group B (P <0.05). In exposure time and intraoperative bleeding volume, there was no statistically significant difference between group A and group B (P >0.05) but with a statistically significant difference between group A/B and group C (P <0.05). In three groups, there was a statistically significant difference in both AOFAS score and VAS score before operation and at 6 months/12 months/last visit after operation (P <0.05). The incidence of complications in the three groups was 8.8%, 12.5% and 19.4%. No statistically significant differences in fusion rate and fusion time were observed among the three groups (P >0.05).ConclusionThree operative approaches have different indications, All the three operative approaches do not influence the fusion rate and fusion time of subtalar joint. The lateral tarsal sinus approach is inferior to the posterior-lateral L approach and the approach from the inferior tip of fibula to the basilar part of the fourth metatarsal bone in the exposure area, while the lateral tarsal sinus approach and the approach from the inferior tip of fibula to the basilar part of the fourth metatarsal bone are superior to the posterior-lateral L approach in the exposure time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and incidence of complications.Level of evidenceTherapeutic, level III. |
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% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
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 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#15,310,749
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#643
of 1,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,221
of 362,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 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 1,365 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 362,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.