| Title |
Relevanz der spinalen Navigation in der rekonstruktiven Halswirbelsäulenchirurgie
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Die Orthopädie, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00132-018-3568-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Kothe, M. Richter |
| Abstract |
Spinal navigation has made significant advances in the last two decades. After initial experiences with pedicle screws in the thoracic and lumbar spine, technological improvements have resulted in their increased application in the cervical spine. Instrumentation techniques like cervical pedicle screws, lateral mass screws in C1 and transarticular screws C1/C2 have become standard due to the application of image guidance. Different navigation techniques can be distinguished based on the type of imaging. In the cervical spine, the preoperative computer tomography (CT) scan that requires intraoperative matching is still the standard of care due to the high image quality. 3D fluoroscopy navigation techniques are currently widely used in the lumbar spine, but the reduced image quality obviates the application in the more sophisticated cervical anatomy or the cervicothoracic region. The future availability of intraoperative CT scans (iCT) combines the advantages of high image quality with those of intraoperative image acquisition. This will lead to a wider use of image guidance in the cervical spine and will enable the surgeon to apply minimally invasive techniques with higher accuracy. The successful application of spinal navigation is based on the technical knowledge of navigation systems and its exercise in daily routine. Only the sufficient experience of the clinical staff makes it possible to standardize operational procedures to increase patient safety, reduce radiation dose and shorten operation time. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 30% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 20% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 50% |
| Engineering | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
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
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Orthopädie
#276
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,124
of 324,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Orthopädie
#8
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 324,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.