↓ Skip to main content

Clinical results of endoscopic sciatic nerve decompression for deep gluteal syndrome: mean 2-year follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Clinical results of endoscopic sciatic nerve decompression for deep gluteal syndrome: mean 2-year follow-up
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1062-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myung-sik Park, Sun-Jung Yoon, Sung-yeop Jung, Seung-Ho Kim

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the effectiveness of endoscopic sciatic nerve decompression and evaluated the differences of clinical results between atraumatic and traumatic groups. Sixty consecutive patients. We retrospectively reviewed sixty consecutive patients without major trauma (45 hips) or with major trauma (15 hips) groups to compare the outcomes of endoscopic treatment.). The mean follow-up period was 24 ± 2.6 months (range, 24-38.4 months). The mean duration of symptoms was 14.1 months (range, 12 to 32 months). Compromising structures were piriformis muscle, fibrovascular bundles, and adhesion with scar tissues. The mean VAS score for pain decreased from 7.4 ± 1.5 to 2.6 ± 1.5 (P = .001). The mean mHHS increased from 81.7 ± 9.6 to 91.8 ± 7.6 (P = .003). Clinically, positive paresthesia and seated piriformis test were statistically significant to diagnosis sciatic entrapment syndrome. Paresthesia and sitting pain were significantly improved at the final follow-up (P = .002). More favorable outcome was observed a group without major trauma. No complication was observed. Endoscopic sciatic nerve decompression is a safe and effective procedure for the management of DGS. Patients with major trauma could have poor clinical outcome. Seated piriformis test, FADIR, and tenderness of sciatic notch are maybe useful guide for pre and postoperative evaluation of DGS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 23 43%

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 26 November 2020.
All research outputs
#11,266,588
of 19,503,523 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,678
of 3,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,176
of 277,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,503,523 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 277,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them