↓ Skip to main content

A review of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and associated vertebral numeration

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
A review of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae and associated vertebral numeration
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5554-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayson Lian, Nicole Levine, Woojin Cho

Abstract

To review the current literature on methods of accurate numeration of vertebral segments in patients with Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTVs). LSTVs are a common congenital anomaly of the L5-S1 junction. While their clinical significance has been debated, unquestionable is the need for their identification prior to spinal surgery. We hypothesize that there are no reliable landmarks by which we can accurately number transitional vertebrae, and thus a full spinal radiograph is required. A Pubmed and EMBASE search using various combinations of specific key words including "LSTV", "lumbosacral transitional vertebrae", "count", "vertebral numbering", and "number" was performed. The gold standard for spinal segment numeration in patients with LSTV remains whole spine imaging and counting caudally, starting from C2. If whole spine imaging is not available, the use of the iliac crest tangent sign on coronal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has fairly reliable sensitivity and specificity (81 and 64-88%, respectively) for accurate numeration of LSTV. The role of paraspinal anatomic markers such as the right renal artery, superior mesenteric artery, aortic bifurcation, and conus medullaris, for identification of vertebral levels is unreliable and should not be used. A sagittal whole spine view should be added as a scout view when patients obtain lumbar MRI to standardize the vertebral numbering technique. To date, there has been no other method for accurate numeration of a transitional vertebral segment, other than counting caudally from C2. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 23 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 37%
Engineering 2 4%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 25 44%
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 28 May 2019.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,055
of 4,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,232
of 332,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#30
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,670 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 332,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 67% of its contemporaries.