↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of neuropathic pain after radical sacral chordoma resection: an observational cohort study with 10-year follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence of neuropathic pain after radical sacral chordoma resection: an observational cohort study with 10-year follow-up
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00590-014-1533-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rapin Phimolsarnti, Saranatra Waikakul

Abstract

This study was carried out to discover the prevalence, characteristics and severity of neuropathic pain after wide resection of chordoma of the sacrum by the use of posterior approach. Patients who had chordoma of their sacrums and underwent wide resection via posterior approach, during 1990-2002, were followed up as a prospective cohort. Pain assessment was carried out in terms of onset, characteristics, intensity (numerical rating scale), response to pain medication and associated symptoms. The correlation between patients' biographic data, preoperative neuropathic pain, type and levels of surgery and pain were analyzed. There were 21 patients; 14 male and 7 female patients. Their ages ranged between 29 and 75 years. Subtotal sacrectomy was carried out in 9 patients and total sacrectomy was carried out in 12 patients. All patients survived the operation. Neuropathic pain was found in 11 patients (52.4 %). Male patients and presentation of preoperative neuropathic pain were significantly related to postoperative neuropathic pain. The other factors were not related to the postoperative pain. Recurrent of severe pain with different characteristics after the operation might indicate tumor recurrent. Early detection of the pain and proper treatment could minimize pain intensity and improved pain management satisfaction.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Master 3 11%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,378,085
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#448
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,221
of 238,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 238,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.