| Title |
Single- versus double-bundle suture button reconstruction of the forearm interosseous membrane for the chronic Essex-Lopresti lesion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00590-017-2051-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael P. Gaspar, Kenneth A. Kearns, Randall W. Culp, A. Lee Osterman, Patrick M. Kane |
| Abstract |
Reconstruction of the ruptured interosseous membrane (IOM) is critical to restore forearm stability for the chronic Essex-Lopresti injury. Positive outcomes have been reported following IOM reconstruction with a single-bundle suture button (Mini-Tightrope) construct, although recent work suggests that double-bundle Mini-TightRope(®) IOM reconstruction is biomechanically superior. The purpose of this study was to determine whether double-bundle Mini-TightRope(®) reconstruction of the forearm IOM results in superior clinical outcomes to the single-bundle technique. Five patients with chronic Essex-Lopresti injuries treated with double-bundle Mini-TightRope(®) IOM reconstruction were matched to five patients treated with single-bundle Mini-TightRope(®) reconstruction. Improvement in clinical examination measures and patient-reported outcomes was compared between the groups. Results were good to excellent in all 10 patients. At final follow-up, forearm rotation was significantly better in the single-bundle group, while maintenance of ulnar variance was better in the double-bundle group. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any other numerical outcomes, and no complications occurred. These findings suggest that while IOM reconstruction with a double-bundle Mini-TightRope(®) construct results in greater resistance to proximal migration of the radius in the intermediate term, there is a modest concomitant loss of forearm rotation when compared to single-bundle reconstruction. Therapeutic Level IV. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 24% |
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 28% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,429,536
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#325
of 882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,313
of 323,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 882 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 323,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.