↓ Skip to main content

Analysing a mechanism of failure in retrieved magnetically controlled spinal rods

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Analysing a mechanism of failure in retrieved magnetically controlled spinal rods
Published in
European Spine Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4936-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vasiliki C. Panagiotopoulou, Stewart K. Tucker, Robert K. Whittaker, Harry S. Hothi, Johann Henckel, Julian J. H. Leong, Thomas Ember, John A. Skinner, Alister J. Hart

Abstract

We aim to describe a mechanism of failure in magnetically controlled growth rods which are used for the correction of the early onset scoliosis. This retrieval study involved nine magnetically controlled growth rods, of a single design, revised from five patients for metal staining, progression of scoliosis, swelling, fractured actuator pin, and final fusion. All the retrieved rods were radiographed and assessed macroscopically and microscopically for material loss. Two implants were further analysed using micro-CT scanning and then sectioned to allow examination of the internal mechanism. No funding was obtained to analyse these implants. There were no potential conflicts interests. Plain radiographs revealed that three out of nine retrieved rods had a fractured pin. All had evidence of surface degradation on the extendable telescopic rod. There was considerable corrosion along the internal mechanism. We found that a third of the retrieved magnetically controlled growth rods had failed due to pin fracture secondary to corrosion of the internal mechanism. We recommend that surgeons consider that any inability of magnetically controlled growth rods to distract may be due to corrosive debris building up inside the mechanism, thereby preventing normal function.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Engineering 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 14 40%
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 26 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,390,619
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,669
of 4,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#353,379
of 417,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 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 4,656 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 417,650 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 46 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.