↓ Skip to main content

Augmentation techniques for isolated meniscal tears

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Augmentation techniques for isolated meniscal tears
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12178-013-9165-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel A. Taylor, Scott A. Rodeo

Abstract

Meniscal tears are relatively common injuries sustained by athletes and non-athletes alike and have far reaching functional and financial implications. Studies have clearly demonstrated the important biomechanical role played by the meniscus. Long-term follow-up studies of post-menisectomy patients show a predisposition toward the development of degenerative arthritic changes. As such, substantial efforts have been made by researchers and clinicians to understand the cellular and molecular basis of meniscal healing. Proinflammatory cytokines have been shown to have a catabolic effect on meniscal healing. In vitro and some limited in vivo studies have shown a proliferative and anabolic response to various growth factors. Surgical techniques that have been developed to stimulate a healing response include mechanical abrasion, fibrin clot application, growth factor application, and attempts at meniscal neovascularization. This article discusses various augmentation techniques for meniscal repair and reviews the current literature with regard to fibrin clot, platelet rich plasma, proinflammatory cytokines, and application of growth factors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 26 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 31%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Materials Science 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 37%
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 20 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,185,720
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#439
of 485 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,709
of 195,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 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 485 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. 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 195,964 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 12 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.