| Title |
Electrical stimulation therapies for spinal fusions: current concepts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, April 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-006-0087-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean C. Gan, Paul A. Glazer |
| Abstract |
Electrical stimulation therapies have been used for more than 30 years to enhance spinal fusions. Although their positive effects on spinal fusions have been widely reported, the mechanisms of action of the technologies were only recently identified. Three types of technologies are available clinically: direct current, capacitive coupling, and inductive coupling. The latter is the basis of pulsed electromagnetic fields and combined magnetic fields. This review summarizes the current concepts on the mechanisms of action, animal and clinical studies, and cost justification for the use of electrical stimulation for spinal fusions. Scientific studies support the validity of electrical stimulation treatments. The mechanisms of action of each of the three electrical stimulation therapies are different. New data demonstrates that the upregulation of several growth factors may be responsible for the clinical success seen with the use of such technologies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 29% |
| Engineering | 18 | 23% |
| Materials Science | 6 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 February 2024.
All research outputs
#6,489,276
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#787
of 4,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,730
of 66,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#7
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,666 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 66,652 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 63% of its contemporaries.