↓ Skip to main content

Remplissage Versus Latarjet for Engaging Hill-Sachs Defects Without Substantial Glenoid Bone Loss: A Biomechanical Comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Remplissage Versus Latarjet for Engaging Hill-Sachs Defects Without Substantial Glenoid Bone Loss: A Biomechanical Comparison
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11999-013-3436-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan M. Degen, Joshua W. Giles, James A. Johnson, George S. Athwal

Abstract

Recurrent shoulder instability is commonly associated with Hill-Sachs defects. These defects may engage the glenoid rim, contributing to glenohumeral dislocation. Two treatment options to manage engaging Hill-Sachs defects are the remplissage procedure, which fills the defect with soft tissue, and the Latarjet procedure, which increases glenoid arc length. Little evidence exists to support one over the other.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 81 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 19%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 53%
Engineering 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 26 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 March 2015.
All research outputs
#14,771,845
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,532
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,968
of 318,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#30
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 318,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.