↓ Skip to main content

3D printing-based minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment of unstable pelvic fracture

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
3D printing-based minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment of unstable pelvic fracture
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13018-018-0778-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leyi Cai, Yingying Zhang, Chunhui Chen, Yiting Lou, Xiaoshan Guo, Jianshun Wang

Abstract

Open reduction and internal fixation of pelvic fractures could restore the stability of the pelvic ring, but there were several problems. Minimally invasive closed reduction cannulated screw treatment of pelvic fractures has lots advantages. However, how to insert the cannulated screw safely and effectively to achieve a reliable fixation were still hard for orthopedist. Our aim was to explore the significance of 3D printing technology as a new method for minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment of unstable pelvic fracture. One hundred thirty-seven patients with unstable pelvic fractures from 2014 to 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the usage of 3D printing technology for preoperative simulation surgery, they were assigned to 3D printing group (n = 65) and control group (n = 72), respectively. These two groups were assessed in terms of operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy, postoperative reduction effect, fracture healing time, and follow-up function. The effect of 3D printing technology was evaluated through minimally invasive cannulated screw treatment. There was no significant difference in these two groups with respect to general conditions, such as age, gender, fracture type, time from injury to operation, injury cause, and combined injury. Length of surgery and average number of fluoroscopies were statistically different for 3D printing group and the control group (p < 0.01), i.e., 58.6 vs. 72.3 min and 29.3 vs. 37 min, respectively. Using the Matta radiological scoring systems, the reduction was scored excellent in 21/65 cases (32.3%) and good in 30/65 cases (46.2%) for the 3D printing group, versus 22/72 cases (30.6%) scored as excellent and 36/72 cases (50%) as good for the control group. On the other hand, using the Majeed functional scoring criteria, there were 27/65 (41.5%) excellent and 26/65 (40%) good cases for the 3D printing group in comparison to 30/72 (41.7%) and 28/72 (38.9%) cases for the control group, respectively. This suggests no significant difference between these two groups about the function outcomes. Full reduction and proper fixation of the pelvic ring and reconstruction of anatomical morphology are of great significance to patients' early functional exercise and for the reduction of long-term complications. This retrospective study has demonstrated the 3D printing technology as a potential approach for improving the diagnosis and treatment of pelvic fractures. The study was retrospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number: ChiCTR-TRC-17012798, trial registration date: 26 Sept. 2017.

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 %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Engineering 2 4%
Materials Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 6 11%
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 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,305,650
of 25,402,528 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#777
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,256
of 342,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#14
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 342,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.