↓ Skip to main content

Anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis of fusion segments and radiological outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 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
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a meta-analysis of fusion segments and radiological outcomes
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13018-016-0415-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ming Luo, Wengang Wang, Mingkui Shen, Lei Xia

Abstract

Radiological outcomes between anterior and posterior approach in Lenke 5C curves were still controversial. Meta-analysis on published articles to compare fusion segments and radiological outcomes between the two surgical approaches was performed. Electronic database was conducted for searching studies concerning the anterior versus posterior approach in Lenke 5C curves. After quality assessment, data of means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were extracted. RevMan 5.3 was adopted for data analysis. Seven case-control studies involving 308 Lenke 5C AIS patients were identified in the meta-analysis. No significant differences were noted in correction rate of thoracolumbar/lumbar curve (95 % CI -6.02 to 4.32, P = 0.75) and incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis (95 % CI 0.12 to 7.19, P = 0.94) of final follow-up, in change values of thoracolumbar/lumbar curve (95 % CI -3.28 to 7.19, P = 0.46) and thoracic kyphosis (95 % CI -4.10 to 0.13, P = 0.07). The anterior approach represented a significant shorter fusion segments compared to posterior approach (95 % CI -1.72 to -0.71, P < 0.00001). The posterior approach obtained a larger increasing Cobb angle of lumbar lordosis than the anterior approach (95 % CI -6.06 to -0.61, P = 0.02). The anterior and posterior approach can obtain comparable coronal correction, change values of thoracic kyphosis, and incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis. The anterior approach saves approximate one more fusion segment, and the posterior approach can obtain a larger increasing Cobb angle of lumbar lordosis, from preoperation to final follow-up. The article type of this study is meta-analysis and prospective registration is not required.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 30%
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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,268,160
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#495
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,774
of 354,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#10
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 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 1,378 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 354,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.