↓ Skip to main content

Bone adaptation of a biologically reconstructed femur after Ewing sarcoma: Long-term morphological and densitometric evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Skeletal Radiology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Bone adaptation of a biologically reconstructed femur after Ewing sarcoma: Long-term morphological and densitometric evolution
Published in
Skeletal Radiology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00256-017-2661-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giordano Valente, Fulvia Taddei, Andrea Roncari, Enrico Schileo, Marco Manfrini

Abstract

Combining bone allografts and vascularized fibular autografts in intercalary reconstructions after resection of bone sarcomas is of particular interest in young patients as it facilitates bone healing and union and helps reduce fractures. However, adverse events related to bone adaptation still occur. Bone adaptation is driven by mechanical loading, but no quantitative biomechanical studies exist that would help surgical planning and rehabilitation. We analyzed the bone adaptation of a successful femoral reconstruction after Ewing sarcoma during 76-month follow-up using a novel methodology that allows CT-based quantification of morphology and density. The results indicated that the vital allograft promoted bone adaptation in the reconstruction. However, an overall negative balance of bone remodeling and a progressive mineral density decrease in the femoral neck might threaten long-term bone safety. These concerns seem related to both surgical technique and mechanical stimuli, where a stiff metal implant may determine load sharing, which negatively affects bone remodeling.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 22%
Researcher 3 17%
Student > Bachelor 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Engineering 2 11%
Psychology 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
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 29 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,890,958
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#1,130
of 1,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,631
of 309,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#13
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 309,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.