↓ Skip to main content

CRPS I following artificial disc surgery: case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
CRPS I following artificial disc surgery: case report and review of the literature
Published in
European Spine Journal, January 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00586-011-1691-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. M. Knoeller, M. Ehmer, B. Kleinmann, T. Wolter

Abstract

We report a case of type 1 complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS I) of the left leg following the implantation of an artificial disc type in the L4/5 segment of the lumbar spine using a midline left-sided retroperitoneal approach. This approach included the mobilisation of the sympathetic trunk with incision and resection of the intervertebral disc. The perioperative and immediate postoperative periods were uneventful, but on the second postoperative day the patient complained of a progressive allodynia of the whole left leg in combination with weakness of the limb. Neurological examination did not reveal any radicular deficit or paresis. A sympathetic reaction following the mobilisation of the sympathetic trunk during the ventral preparation of the spine was suspected and investigated further. A diagnosis of CRPS I was proposed, and the patient was treated with analgesia, co-analgesics for pain alienation, and systemic corticosteroid therapy. A computed tomography-guided sympathetic block and lymphatic drainage were performed. Following conservative orthopaedic rehabilitation therapy, the degree of pain, allodynia, weakness, and swelling were reduced and the condition of the patient was ameliorated. The cost-benefit ratio of spinal arthroplasty is still controversial. The utility of this paper is to debate a possible cause of a painful complication, which can invalidate the results of a successful operation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 September 2012.
All research outputs
#20,145,561
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,639
of 4,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,707
of 182,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#22
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,592 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 182,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.