↓ Skip to main content

Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Comparative study of two spinous process (SP) osteotomy techniques for posterior decompression surgery in lumbar spinal stenosis: SP base versus splitting osteotomy
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5526-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gun Woo Lee, Myun-Whan Ahn

Abstract

To compare the postoperative clinical and radiological outcomes of the SP base osteotomy versus SP splitting techniques for PD for treating LSS. Of 139 patients who underwent PD surgery for LSS, 97 who met the study criteria were enrolled in the study. Group A comprised 53 patients who underwent SP base osteotomy, and group B included 44 patients who underwent SP splitting osteotomy. The primary study endpoint was intensity of lower back pain (LBP) and pain radiation to the lower extremities measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints included (1) clinical outcomes assessed using Oswestry disability index and 12-short health form questionnaire; (2) surgical outcomes; and (3) procedure-related complications. LBP was more or less greater in SP base osteotomy group than in SP splitting osteotomy group at postoperative 1 week and 1 year (P = 0.04 and 0.03), but radiating pain was no significant difference between the groups throughout the 1-year follow-up period. One year after the surgery, the fusion rate at the osteotomized site was significantly greater in SP splitting osteotomy group (77%) than in SP base osteotomy group (55%) (P = 0.03). Clinical outcomes, surgical outcomes, and complications did not differ significantly between groups during follow-up times. The two SP osteotomy techniques offer excellent clinical and radiological outcomes at least for the first year after the surgery. In fusion rate at the osteotomized SP site, the SP splitting technique was superior to the SP base osteotomy technique. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 18%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Physics and Astronomy 1 6%
Unknown 7 41%
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 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,504
of 4,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,279
of 331,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#37
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 331,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.