| Title |
Lisfranc injuries
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12178-017-9387-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael P. Clare |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this review is to discuss key anatomic and pathoanatomic factors, treatment principles, and patient outcomes of Lisfranc injuries. Although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) remains the current gold standard of treatment, ORIF with primary arthrodesis has become increasingly popular in recent years, both for pure ligamentous and for bony-ligamentous injuries. Return to activity and competitive sports as well as overall patient outcomes have been further defined, suggesting that most patients are able to return to near pre-injury level if properly diagnosed and appropriately treated. Considerable controversy remains as to the optimal method of treatment of Lisfranc injuries and may ultimately be defined by activity-specific or sport-specific criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 17 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 February 2021.
All research outputs
#14,350,775
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#316
of 492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,307
of 422,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#10
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 492 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 422,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.