↓ Skip to main content

Revision shoulder arthroplasty with a reverse shoulder prosthesis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Revision shoulder arthroplasty with a reverse shoulder prosthesis
Published in
Die Orthopädie, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00132-017-3494-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. E. Ozgur, R. Sadeghpour, T. R. Norris

Abstract

Revision shoulder arthroplasty presents many unique and complex challenges when glenoid bone loss is involved. A distorted and medialized anatomy prevents the proper mechanics of the reverse prosthesis with regard to deltoid tension and ultimate function. This paper highlights one surgeon's experience using structural allograft for glenoid bone loss. In all, 20 patients for a total of 24 surgeries with a medialized glenoid and/or substantial glenoid bone loss of grade IIB or higher were evaluated in this retrospective study. The allograft surgeries were performed as a one-stage procedure except for three patients. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP2) was added to supplement incorporation in all cases. Four patients had two separate allograft procedures. Eight of the allograft procedure were femoral shaft, eleven of the allografts were femoral neck/head, and five of the allograft procedures were from proximal humerus. A graft was considered a success if they had at least 12 months of clinical and radiographic follow-up without subsequent removal of the graft or radiographic failure. Patients with less than 12 months of follow-up were included if the graft was removed or had early failure. All femoral shaft allografts except one failed, and during revision surgery it was often noted that the graft was cracked where the peripheral screws had been drilled. In nine patients the graft was still in place at last follow-up, seven of these were femoral neck/head allografts. Five grafts were removed secondary to infection. Average follow-up was 24 months (range 5-45 months). Femoral neck allografts are an option in patients with substantial bone loss. The authors do not recommend use of femoral shaft allografts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 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 %
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Orthopädie
#189
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,473
of 336,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Orthopädie
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 336,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.