↓ Skip to main content

Annular closure device for disc herniation: meta-analysis of clinical outcome and complications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2018
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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Annular closure device for disc herniation: meta-analysis of clinical outcome and complications
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2213-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen Jie Choy, Kevin Phan, Ashish D. Diwan, Chon Sum Ong, Ralph J. Mobbs

Abstract

Lumbar intervertebral disc herniation is a common cause of lower back and leg pain, with surgical intervention (e.g. discectomy to remove the herniated disc) recommended after an appropriate period of conservative management, however the existing or increased breach of the annulus fibrosus persists with the potential of reherniation. Several prosthesis and techniques to reduce re-herniation have been proposed including implantation of an annular closure device (ACD) - Barricaid™ and an annular tissue repair system (AR) - Anulex-Xclose™. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assist surgeons determine a potential approach to reduce incidences of recurrent lumbar disc herniation and assess the current devices regarding their outcomes and complications. Four electronic full-text databases were systematically searched through September 2017. Data including outcomes of annular closure device/annular repair were extracted. All results were pooled utilising meta-analysis with weighted mean difference and odds ratio as summary statistics. Four studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies reported the use of Barricaid (ACD) while one study reported the use of Anulex (AR). A total of 24 symptomatic reherniation were reported among 811 discectomies with ACD/AR as compared to 51 out of 645 in the control group (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.20,0.56; I2 = 0%; P < 0.0001). Durotomies were lower among the ACD/AR patients with only 3 reported cases compared to 7 in the control group (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.13, 2.23; I2 = 11%; P = 0.39). Similar outcomes for post-operative Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale were obtained when both groups were compared. Early results showed the use of Barricaid and Anulex devices are beneficial for short term outcomes demonstrating reduction in symptomatic disc reherniation with low post-operative complication rates. Long-term studies are required to further investigate the efficacy of such devices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 38 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Engineering 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 38 47%
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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#14,423,597
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,166
of 4,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,307
of 301,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#38
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,110 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 301,794 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 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.