↓ Skip to main content

Synthetic meniscus replacement: a review

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
241 Mendeley
Title
Synthetic meniscus replacement: a review
Published in
International Orthopaedics, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00264-012-1682-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Christiane Theodora Vrancken, Pieter Buma, Tony George van Tienen

Abstract

The number of meniscus-related operations continues to rise due to the ageing and more active population. Irreparable meniscal lesions generally require (partial) meniscectomy. Although a majority of the patients benefit from pain relief and functional improvement post-meniscectomy, some remain symptomatic. As an alternative to a meniscal allograft, which is only indicated for the severely damaged meniscus, most patients can nowadays be treated by implantation of a synthetic meniscal substitute. Currently three of these implants, two partial and one total replacement, are clinically available and several others are in the stage of preclinical testing. Grossly, two types of meniscal substitutes can be distinguished: porous, resorbable implants that stimulate tissue regeneration and solid, non-resorbable implants that permanently replace the whole meniscus. Although the implantation of a porous meniscus replacement generally seems promising and improves clinical outcome measures to some degree, their superiority to partial meniscectomy still needs to be proven. The evaluation of new prostheses being developed requires a wider focus than has been adopted so far. Upon selection of the appropriate materials, preclinical evaluation of such implants should comprise a combination of (in vitro) biomechanical and (in vivo) biological tests, while up to now the focus has mainly been on biological aspects. Obviously, well-defined randomised controlled trials are necessary to support clinical performance of new implants. Since the use of a meniscus replacement requires an additional costly implant and surgery compared to meniscectomy only, the clinical outcome of new products should be proven to surpass the results of the conventional therapies available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 241 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 235 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 27 11%
Other 16 7%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 59 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 49 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 9%
Materials Science 17 7%
Chemistry 7 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 75 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,511,073
of 24,865,967 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#398
of 1,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,641
of 190,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,865,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 190,770 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.