↓ Skip to main content

Consequences of reaming with flat and convex reamers for bone volume and surface area of the glenoid; a basic science study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Consequences of reaming with flat and convex reamers for bone volume and surface area of the glenoid; a basic science study
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0312-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Karelse, Steven Leuridan, Alexander Van Tongel, Philippe Debeer, Jos Van Der Sloten, Kathleen Denis, Lieven F. De Wilde

Abstract

The effect of reaming on bone volume and surface area of the glenoid is not precisely known. We hypothesize that (1) convex reamers create a larger surface area than flat reamers, (2) flat reamers cause less bone loss than convex reamers, and (3) the amount of bone loss increases with the amount of version correction. Reaming procedures with different types of reamers are performed on similar-sized uniconcave and biconcave glenoids created from Sawbones foam blocks. The loss of bone volume, the size of the remaining surface area, and the reaming depth are measured and evaluated. Reaming with convex reamers results in a significantly larger surface area than with flat reamers for both uniconcave and biconcave glenoids (p = 0.013 and p = 0.001). Convex reamers cause more bone loss than flat reamers, but the difference is only significant for uniconcave glenoids (p = 0.007). In biconcave glenoids, convex reamers remove a similar amount of bone as flat reamers, but offer a larger surface area while maximizing the correction of the retroversion. In pathological uniconcave glenoids, convex reamers are preferred because of the conforming shape.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 17%
Professor 2 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Engineering 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#646
of 1,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,601
of 386,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#11
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 1,371 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 386,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.