↓ Skip to main content

Extensive soft tissue lesions in redislocated after simple elbow dislocations

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Extensive soft tissue lesions in redislocated after simple elbow dislocations
Published in
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jse.2017.02.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars E. Adolfsson, Jens O. Nestorson, Johan H. Scheer

Abstract

The majority of simple elbow dislocations (no associated fractures) can be treated nonoperatively with a short period of immobilization followed by guided aftercare. This case series describes the soft tissue injuries in a rare subset of patients in whom the elbow redislocated despite adequate immobilization. During a 6-year period, 8 patients were identified. They were all treated with reduction and casting in 90° of flexion or more. At 1 week of follow-up, redislocation had occurred in all patients and open soft tissue repair was performed. The injuries were documented and the patients were followed up clinically and with radiographs. Extensive soft tissue injuries, including both collateral ligament injuries and muscle origin avulsions from either or both sides, were found in all patients. The functional result at follow-up was satisfactory in all patients. Vast soft tissue injuries including both collateral ligaments and muscle origins should be expected in the event of early severe instability of a dislocated elbow joint.

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 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 %
Other 6 14%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Unspecified 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 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 27 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,787,133
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
#1,692
of 3,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,891
of 324,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
#25
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 324,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 51% of its contemporaries.