↓ Skip to main content

Is anterior release and cervical traction necessary for the treatment of irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Is anterior release and cervical traction necessary for the treatment of irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5563-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian Guan, Zan Chen, Hao Wu, Qingyu Yao, Can Zhang, Tengfei Qi, Kai Wang, Wanru Duan, Jun Gao, Yongning Li, Fengzeng Jian

Abstract

To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation (IAAD) treated with posterior fusion after anterior release and direct posterior reduction of the dislocation. Online databases were searched for articles describing IAAD published from 1999 to 2015. Five studies (105 patients) described treatment with posterior fusion after periodontoid tissue release, and five studies (113 patients) described treatment with direct posterior reduction of the dislocation. The primary outcomes in this study were the complete reduction rate, Japanese Orthopedic Association score, perioperative morbidity, perioperative mortality, complications, vascular injury, and infection. Standard meta-analysis techniques were used to compare the outcomes. Of 319 citations examined, 10 articles involving 218 participants were eligible. Overall, there were no significant differences between the anterior release and posterior fixation (ARPF) group and direct posterior reduction and fixation (DPRF) group in the complete reduction rate, neurologic recovery rate, perioperative morbidity, perioperative mortality, vascular injury, or infection. However, the complication rate in the DPRF group was much lower than that in the ARPF group. Compared with posterior fusion after anterior release, direct posterior reduction of the dislocation showed no significant differences in terms of the complete reduction rate, neurologic recovery rate, or fusion rate; however, it was a simpler process associated with less surgical trauma and a shorter operation time. Because of the limitations of the small sample in this study, whether direct posterior reduction of the dislocation is more effective and safer than posterior fusion after anterior release remains unclear. III. 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 36%
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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#17,945,904
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,289
of 4,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,106
of 296,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#24
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 296,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 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 70% of its contemporaries.