↓ Skip to main content

Quantification of cephalomedullary nail fit in the femur using 3D computer modelling: a comparison between 1.0 and 1.5m bow designs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2016
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Quantification of cephalomedullary nail fit in the femur using 3D computer modelling: a comparison between 1.0 and 1.5m bow designs
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0389-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beat Schmutz, Jayani Amarathunga, Stanley Kmiec, Prasad Yarlagadda, Michael Schuetz

Abstract

The radius of curvature (ROC) misfit of cephalomedullary nails during anterograde nailing can lead to complications such as distal anterior cortical encroachment. This study quantified the anatomical fit of a new nail with 1.0-m ROC (TFN-ADVANCED(™) Proximal Femoral Nailing System [TFNA]) compared with a nail with 1.5-m ROC (Gamma3 Long Nail R1.5 [Gamma3]). We generated 63 three-dimensional models (48 female, 45 right femur) representing the cortical surfaces of the femora (31 Caucasian, 28 Japanese, and 4 Thai). The mean age of the specimens was 77 years (±8.1), and the mean height was 158.5 cm (±9.6). Utilizing a customized software tool, nail fit was determined from the total surface area of nail protrusion from the inner cortex surface and maximum distance of nail protrusion in the axial plane; the position of the distal nail tip within the canal was also determined. Overall, TFNA had both a significantly smaller mean total surface area of nail protrusion (915.8 vs. 1181.6 mm(2); P < 0.05) and a mean maximum distance of nail protrusion in the axial plane (1.9 vs. 2.1 mm; P = 0.007) when compared with Gamma3. The mean total surface area of nail protrusion was significantly smaller with TFNA versus Gamma3 in both the Caucasian (P = 0.0009) and Asian (Japanese and Thai) samples (P = 0.000002); the mean maximum distance of TFNA protrusion was significantly smaller in Asians (P = 0.04), but not in Caucasians (P = 0.08). Most tip positions for both nail types were anterior, but TFNA had a higher number of center positions than Gamma3 (13 vs. 7) and a shift from the far anterior cortex to the center of the medullary canal (overall and in Caucasians). In Asians, the most prominent position was far anterior for both nails. The 1.0-m ROC TFNA nail resulted in better fit than the 1.5-m ROC Gamma3 nail. Clinical trials and case studies should be conducted in the future to verify if these findings would also result in clinical improvements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Engineering 12 26%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 26%
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 28 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,258,962
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#495
of 1,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,867
of 299,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#11
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 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 1,375 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
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 299,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.