↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-14-281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shih-Hao Chen, Ming-Chieh Chiang, Jin-Fu Lin, Shang-Chih Lin, Ching-Hua Hung

Abstract

For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively immobilize the cage itself. The kinematic and mechanical effects of these integrated components on the lumbar construct have not been extensively studied. A nonlinearly lumbar finite-element model was developed and validated to investigate the biomechanical differences between three stand-alone (Latero, SynFix, and Stabilis) and SynCage-Open plus transpedicular fixation. All four cages were instrumented at the L3-4 level.

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 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 > Master 11 21%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Materials Science 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 30%
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 02 October 2013.
All research outputs
#18,348,542
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,115
of 4,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,473
of 207,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#67
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 207,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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.