↓ Skip to main content

Major bone defect treatment with an osteoconductive bone substitute

Overview of attention for article published in MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 138)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Major bone defect treatment with an osteoconductive bone substitute
Published in
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s12306-009-0028-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefania Paderni, S. Terzi, L. Amendola

Abstract

A bone defect can be provoked by several pathological conditions (e.g. bone tumours, infections, major trauma with bone stock loss) or by surgical procedures, required for the appropriate treatment. Surgical techniques currently used for treating bone defects may count on different alternatives, including autologous vascularized bone grafts, homologous bone graft provided by musculoskeletal tissue bank, heterologous bone graft (xenograft), or prostheses, each one of them dealing with both specific advantages and complications and drawbacks. The main concerns related to these techniques respectively are: donor site morbidity and limited available amount; possible immune response and viral transmission; possible animal-derived pathogen transmission and risk of immunogenic rejection; high invasiveness and surgery-related systemic risks, long post-operative. physical recovery and prostheses revision need. Nowadays, an ideal alternative is the use of osteoconductive synthetic bone substitutes. Many synthetic substitutes are available, used either alone or in combination with other bone graft. Synthetic bone graft materials available as alternatives to autogeneous bone include calcium sulphates, special glass ceramics (bioactive glasses) and calcium phosphates (calcium hydroxyapatite, HA; tricalcium phosphate, TCP; and biphasic calcium phosphate, BCP). These materials differ in composition and physical properties fro each other and from bone (De Groot in Bioceramics of calcium phosphate, pp 100-114, 1983; Hench in J Am Ceram Soc 74:1487-1510, 1994; Jarcho in Clin Orthop 157:259-278, 1981; Daculsi et al. in Int Rev Cytol 172:129-191, 1996). Both stoichiometric and non-stoichiometric HA-based substitutes represent the current first choice in orthopedic surgery, in that they provide an osteoconductive scaffold to which chemotactic, circulating proteins and cells (e.g. mesenchymal stem cells, osteoinductive growth factors) can migrate and adhere, and within which progenitor cells can differentiate into functioning osteoblasts (Szpalski and Gunzburg in Orthopedics 25S:601-609, 2002). Indeed, HA may be extemporarily combined either with whole autologous bone marrow or PRP (platelet rich plasma) gel inside surgical theatre in order to favour and accelerate bone regeneration. A case of bifocal ulnar bone defect treated with stoichiometric HA-based bone substitute combined with PRP is reported in here, with a 12-month-radiographic follow-up.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Other 12 12%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 40%
Engineering 14 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Chemistry 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 October 2022.
All research outputs
#8,064,660
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY
#39
of 138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,958
of 102,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 138 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 102,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them