↓ Skip to main content

Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Ultrasonic bone scalpel: utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5536-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bharat R. Dave, Devanand Degulmadi, Shreekant Dahibhate, Ajay Krishnan, Denish Patel

Abstract

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is a technically challenging surgery. Use of conventional instruments like high-speed burr and kerrison rongeurs is associated with high complication rates such as increased blood loss and incidental durotomy. Use of ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) in cervical corpectomy helps to minimize such adverse events. We performed a retrospective study based on the data of 101 consecutive patients who underwent cervical corpectomies with UBS for different cervical spine pathologies from December 2014 to December 2016. Total duration of surgery, time taken for corpectomy, estimated blood loss, and incidental durotomies were noted. Total surgical time was 30-80 min (59.36 ± 13.21 min) for single-level ACCF and 60-120 min (92.74 ± 21.04 min) for double-level ACCF. Time taken for single-level corpectomy was 2 min 11  ± 10 s and 3 min 41  ± 20 s for double-level corpectomy. Estimated blood loss ranged from 20-150 ml (52.07 ± 29.86 ml) in single level and 40-200 ml (73.22 ± 41.64 ml) in double level. Four (3.96%) inadvertent dural tears were noted, two during single-level corpectomy and other two during double-level corpectomy. Use of UBS is likely to provide a safe, rapid, and effective surgery when compared to conventional rongeurs and high-speed burr. The advantages such as lower blood loss and lower intra-operative incidental dural tears were noted with the use of UBS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 68%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 5 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 July 2019.
All research outputs
#4,061,842
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#425
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,126
of 333,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#10
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 333,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 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 90% of its contemporaries.