| Title |
Surgical Technique: Porous Tantalum Reconstruction for Destructive Nonprimary Periacetabular Tumors
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-011-2117-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fazel A. Khan, Peter S. Rose, Michiro Yanagisawa, David G. Lewallen, Franklin H. Sim |
| Abstract |
Large bone loss and frequently irradiated existing bone make reconstructing metastatic and other nonprimary periacetabular tumors challenging. Although existing methods are initially successful, they may fail with time. Given the low failure rates of porous tantalum acetabular implants in other conditions with large bone loss or irradiated bone, we developed a technique to use these implants in these neoplastic cases where others might fail. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 January 2012.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,162
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,614
of 148,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#42
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 148,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.