↓ Skip to main content

Large diaphyseal-incorporating allograft prosthetic composites: when, how, and why

Overview of attention for article published in Die Orthopädie, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Large diaphyseal-incorporating allograft prosthetic composites: when, how, and why
Published in
Die Orthopädie, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00132-017-3498-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. B. McLendon, J. L. Cox, M. A. Frankle

Abstract

Proximal humeral bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty is a complex problem with a heterogeneous presentation. Different etiologies may contribute to varying degrees of severity in bone loss that dictate different treatment approaches. The purpose of this is article is to describe our technique for treatment of proximal humeral bone loss with proximal humeral allograft prosthetic composites (APC) and identify factors that may predict when larger allografts may be necessary. Ninety-nine patients were identified that had undergone reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with use of a proximal humeral allograft. Thirty-nine of these had large allografts that involved a significant portion of the diaphysis. Preoperative characteristics were examined to identify factors that may be associated with use of a larger diaphyseal-incorporating allograft. Well-fixed humeral stems could be treated with short metaphyseal allografts in 55 of 65 (85%) cases. Loose stems required longer diaphyseal-incorporating allografts in 28 of 31 (90%) cases, and these were commonly associated with periprosthetic fractures (n = 10), failed prior APC (n = 6), and infection (n = 5). Noncemented stems required diaphyseal grafts in 75% of cases, compared to cemented stems which required larger grafts in 34% of cases. Proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty can be successfully managed with a reverse total shoulder and proximal humeral allograft. Larger allografts are frequently required for loose humeral stems, and noncemented stems appear more likely to require larger allografts than cemented stems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Researcher 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Unknown 4 36%
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 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Orthopädie
#276
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,374
of 340,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Orthopädie
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. 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 340,903 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 35 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.