↓ Skip to main content

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a changing paradigm

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a changing paradigm
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00167-014-3209-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Freddie H. Fu, Carola F. van Eck, Scott Tashman, James J. Irrgang, Morey S. Moreland

Abstract

Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the knee is potentially devastating for the patient and can result in both acute and long-term clinical problems. Consequently, the ACL has always been and continues to be of great interest to orthopaedic scientists and clinicians worldwide. Major advancements in ACL surgery have been made in the past few years. ACL reconstruction has shifted from an open to arthroscopic procedure, in which a two- and later one-incision technique was applied. Studies have found that traditional, transtibial arthroscopic single-bundle reconstruction does not fully restore rotational stability of the knee joint, and as such, a more anatomic approach to ACL reconstruction has emerged. The goal of anatomic ACL reconstruction is to replicate the knee's normal anatomy and restore its normal kinematics, all while protecting long-term knee health. This manuscript describes the research that has changed the paradigm of ACL reconstruction from traditional techniques to present day anatomic and individualized concepts.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 160 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 37 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Sports and Recreations 7 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 49 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,746,331
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#162
of 2,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,838
of 229,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#7
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 229,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.