| Title |
Small Improvements in Mechanical Axis Alignment Achieved With MRI versus CT-based Patient-specific Instruments in TKA: A Randomized Clinical Trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-014-3784-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tilman Pfitzner, Matthew P. Abdel, Philipp von Roth, Carsten Perka, Hagen Hommel |
| Abstract |
Patient-specific instrumentation in TKA has the proposed benefits of improving coronal and sagittal alignment and rotation of the components. In contrast, the literature is inconsistent if the use of patient-specific instrumentation improves alignment in comparison to conventional instrumentation. Depending on the manufacturer, patient-specific instrumentation is based on either MRI or CT scans. However, it is unknown whether one patient-specific instrumentation approach is more accurate than the other and if there is a potential benefit in terms of reduction of duration of surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 132 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 16% |
| Researcher | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 20% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Engineering | 10 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 1 | <1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 45 | 34% |
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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,536,995
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,429
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,075
of 241,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#58
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 241,655 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 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 56% of its contemporaries.