↓ Skip to main content

Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00586-015-3929-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Berjano, Francesco Langella, Marco Damilano, Matteo Pejrona, Josip Buric, Maryem Ismael, Jorge Hugo Villafañe, Claudio Lamartina

Abstract

Lumbar fusion has been found to be a clinically effective procedure in adult patients. The lateral transpsoas approach allows for direct visualization of the intervertebral space, significant support of the vertebral anterior column, while avoiding the complications associated with the posterior procedures. The aim of this study is to determine the fusion rate of inter body fusion using computed tomography in patients treated by extreme lateral intersomatic fusion (XLIF) technique. All patients intervened by XLIF procedure between 2009 and 2013 by a single operating team at a single institution were recruited for this study. A clinical evaluation and a CT scan of the involved spinal segments were then performed with at least 1-year follow-up following the standard clinical practice in the center. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria, of which 53 were available for review with a mean follow-up of 34.5 (12-62) months. A total of 68 (87.1 %) of the 78 operated levels were considered as completely fused, 8 (10.2 %) were considered as stable, probably fused, and 2 (2.6 %) of the operated levels were diagnosed as pseudarthrosis. When stratified by type of graft material complete fusion was obtained in 75 % of patients in which autograft was used to fill the cages, compared to 89 % of patients in which calcium triphosphate was used, and 83 % of patients in which Attrax™ was used. Reports of XLIF fusion rate in the literature vary from 85 to 93 % at 1-year follow-up. Fusion rate in our series corroborates data from previous publications. The results of this series confirm that anterior inter body fusion by means of XLIF approach is a technique that achieves high fusion rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes.

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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 24%
Other 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 54%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 22 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#6,320,615
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#745
of 4,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,537
of 264,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#18
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,650 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 264,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.