| Title |
How safe is minimally invasive pedicle screw placement for treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-016-4908-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timo Michael Heintel, Stefan Dannigkeit, Annabel Fenwick, Martin Cornelius Jordan, Hendrik Jansen, Fabian Gilbert, Rainer Meffert |
| Abstract |
Prospective analysis of patients who underwent minimally invasive posterior instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of minimally invasive pedicle screw placement in patients with unstable thoracic and lumbar spine fractures using the conventional fluoroscopy technique. Although wound infection, haematoma, and new neurological deficit due to screw malplacement remain a common source of morbidity, estimates of their rates of occurrence remain relatively limited. 2052 percutaneous pedicle screws in 433 consecutive patients were evaluated. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was based on evaluation of axial 3-mm slice computed tomography scans. Morbidity and mortality data were collected prospectively. A total of 2029 of 2052 screws (99%) had a good or excellent position. 5 screws (0.2%) showed a higher grade violation of the medial pedicle wall. Seven patients (1.8%) needed revision due to screw malposition (3 pat.), surgical site infection, postoperative haematoma, implant failure (2 pat.), and technical difficulties. Minimally invasive transpedicular instrumentation is an accurate, reliable, and safe procedure to treat thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 20% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 12% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,425,723
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#772
of 4,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,673
of 420,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#6
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,662 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 420,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.