↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Outcomes With Midline Cortical Bone Trajectory Pedicle Screws Versus Traditional Pedicle Screws in Moving Lumbar Fusions From Hospitals to Outpatient Surgery Centers

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Spine Surgery, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical Outcomes With Midline Cortical Bone Trajectory Pedicle Screws Versus Traditional Pedicle Screws in Moving Lumbar Fusions From Hospitals to Outpatient Surgery Centers
Published in
Clinical Spine Surgery, July 2017
DOI 10.1097/bsd.0000000000000436
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kingsley R. Chin, Fabio J.R. Pencle, André V. Coombs, Mohamed Elsharkawy, Corrine F. Packer, Elijah A. Hothem, Jason A. Seale

Abstract

Level III. To report on the outcomes of midline cortical bone trajectory (CBT) pedicle screw surgical technique for posterior lumbar fixation in the outpatient surgery center (OSC) compared with traditional pedicle screws in the hospital. Traditional pedicle screws have been the gold standard for posterior lumbar fusion. Advances in spine surgery, including less invasive procedures have propelled the design of instruments and implants to achieve greater posterior spinal fixation, with decreased tissue destruction and higher safety margins. Biomechanical studies have validated the superior pullout strength of cortical screws versus the traditional pedicle screws and represent an opportunity to perform safe lumbar fusions in OSCs with same day discharge. The medical records of 60 patients with prospectively collected data were reviewed. Two matched cohort groups consisting of 30 patients each, CBT pedicle screws performed in OSC patients (group 1) was compared with traditional pedicle screws performed in hospital patients (group 2). Outcomes were assessed with self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, and radiologic fusion rate. Totally, 33 males and 27 females, age range (28-75), average 58±3 years. Average body mass index was 29±1.15 kg/m. A total of 65% of surgeries were at L5-S1 level. Significant improvement noted in VAS back pain scores in the OSC group from 7.8±0.5 to 2.5±0.7, P=0.001. Comparing intergroup VAS back pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores, OSC group demonstrated significant improvement, P=0.004 and 0.027, respectively. Fusion rate at 2 years was similar, P=0.855 between groups. We successfully transitioned our lumbar fusions from hospitals to OSCs using a midline CBT pedicle screw technique. Although traditional pedicle screw placement is effective and may be viable in an OSC, we see more advantages to use midline cortical screws over traditional pedicle screws.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#4,837,286
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Spine Surgery
#205
of 1,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,484
of 326,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Spine Surgery
#8
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,921 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 326,855 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.