| Title |
Range of motion after thoracolumbar corpectomy: evaluation of analogous constructs with a novel low-profile anterior dual-rod system and a traditional dual-rod system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-015-3966-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Gehrchen, Sajan K. Hegde, Mark Moldavsky, Suresh Chinthukunta, Manasa Gudipally, Brandon Bucklen, Kanaan Salloum, Saif Khalil |
| Abstract |
An in vitro biomechanical study. To compare the biomechanical stability of traditional and low-profile thorocolumbar anterior instrumentation after a corpectomy with cross-connectors. Dual-rod anterior thoracolumbar lateral plates (ATLP) have been used clinically to stabilize the thorocolumbar spine. The stability of a low-profile dual-rod system (LP DRS) and a traditional dual-rod system (DRS) was compared using a calf spine model. Two groups of seven specimens were tested intact and then in the following order: (1) ATLP with two cross-connectors and spacer; (2) ATLP with one cross-connector and spacer; (3) ATLP with spacer. Data were normalized to intact (100 %) and statistical analysis was used to determine between-group significances. Both constructs reduced motion compared to intact in flexion-extension and lateral bending. Axial rotation motion became unstable after the corpectomy and motion was greater than intact, even with two cross-connectors with both systems. Relative to their respective intact groups, LP DRS significantly reduced motion compared to analogous DRS in flexion-extension. The addition of cross-connectors reduced motion in all loading modes. The LP DRS provides 7.5 mm of reduced height with similar biomechanical performance. The reduced height may be beneficiary by reduced irritation and impingement on adjacent structures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 50% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
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 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,269,439
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,656
of 4,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,913
of 264,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#58
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 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 4,627 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 264,516 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 161 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.