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 |
Quadriceps autograft to treat Achilles Chronic tears: a simple surgical technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-016-0967-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rafael Arriaza, Raquel Gayoso, Emilio López-Vidriero, Jesús Aizpurúa, Carlos Agrasar |
| Abstract |
Chronic Achilles tendon tears could hinder patients and represent a challenge to surgeons. Although many different surgical techniques have been proposed for reconstruction of a neglected Achilles tendon rupture, there is no clear evidence to support one technique over the others, but the use of a technique that could allow for an "anatomical" reconstructions seems desirable. The present paper describes a new anatomic Achilles tendon reconstruction for chronic tears, using a quadriceps tendon autograft as graft source, with PRP injected into the graft and the neighbor tissue, and fixation in a bone trough with a simple small fragments screw. Autologous quadriceps tendon graft seems an excellent option, although -surprisingly- has received little attention until now. Autologous Quadriceps tendon graft (in bone-tendon configuration) is a simple technique that could allow surgeons to reconstruct tissue defects in the Achilles tendon with non-expensive hardware. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 12 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
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 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#21,264,673
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,773
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,687
of 301,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#77
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 4,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 301,373 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 80 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.