↓ Skip to main content

Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip prosthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Review of the role of dynamic 18F-NaF PET in diagnosing and distinguishing between septic and aseptic loosening in hip prosthesis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-014-0147-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olu Adesanya, Andrew Sprowson, James Masters, Charles Hutchinson

Abstract

Joint replacements may fail due to infection, dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture and loosening. Between 0.4 and 4% of joint replacements are known to be complicated by infection and aseptic loosening 2¿18%. Differentiating between infection and aseptic loosening has an important bearing on the ongoing strategy for antimicrobial therapy and surgical intervention, but distinguishing one from the other can be difficult and will often require a battery of clinical and biochemical tests including the use of varying radiological modalities to accurately identify whether problematic joints are infected or aseptically loose. Prompt diagnosis is important due to the development of a biofilm on the surface of the infected prosthesis, which makes treatment difficult. There is no consensus among experts on the ideal imaging technique nor the methodology for image interpretation, but there is an increasing trend to apply hybrid imaging in the investigation of painful joint prosthesis and recent attempts have been made using PET-CT to identify aseptic loosening and infection with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) and sodium fluoride 18F-Na. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the role of 18F-NaF sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) in distinguishing between septic and aseptic failure in hip and knee replacements, in addition to evaluating the feasibility of using multi-sequential 18F-NaF PET-CT for the assessment of painful lower limb prostheses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 4%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%

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 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,249,662
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1,165
of 1,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,660
of 352,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 352,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.