↓ Skip to main content

Anterior-only stabilization using cage versus plating with bone autograft for the treatment of type II/IIA Hangman’s fracture combined with intervertebral disc injury

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Anterior-only stabilization using cage versus plating with bone autograft for the treatment of type II/IIA Hangman’s fracture combined with intervertebral disc injury
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13018-015-0164-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fuxin Wei, Ximin Pan, Zhiyu Zhou, Shangbin Cui, Rui Zhong, Le Wang, Manman Gao, Ningning Chen, Zijian Liang, Xuenong Zou, Sheng Huang, Shaoyu Liu

Abstract

Anterior C2/3 discectomy and interbody fusion (ACDF) with plating is increasingly performed as the primary treatment of unstable Hangman's fracture; however, plate-related complications, such as screw back-out, plate fracture and soft-tissue injury, is not uncommon. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage has now been developed to provide initial stability before fusion; however, whether and how ACDF with PEEK cage offer better clinical results compared with ACDF with plating in management of Hangman's fracture remains unknown. This study compares the efficacy of ACDF with plating to that of ACDF with PEEK cage in management of type II/IIA Hangman's fractures (according to Levine and Edwards classification) retrospectively. From February 2006 to March 2012, a total of 21 patients with type II/IIA Hangman's fractures combined with intervertebral disc injury underwent ACDF with PEEK cage, and 28 patients underwent ACDF with plating. Perioperative parameters were compared. The average follow-up period was 50.3 months (range 27-76 months). The clinical outcome (visual analog scale (VAS), American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scale, and clinical post-traumatic neck score (PTNC)) and radiological outcome (translation of C2, local kyphotic angle (LKA), and fusion status of C2/3) was compared retrospectively. The operative time and blood loss were significantly less in the ACDF with cage group compared with that in the ACDF with plating group (P < 0.05). All patients showed neurological recovery and achieved solid fusion. There were no significant differences in the clinical and radiological outcomes at final follow-up between groups, except in the LKA and the correction loss rate of LKA which were higher in the ACDF with plating group (P < 0.05). Donor-site pain occurred in two patients (10.1%) within 6 months after operation in the ACDF with plating group and none in the ACDF with cage group. All patients recovered without any adverse effects. ACDF with PEEK cage is effective and reliable in management of type II/IIA Hangman's fractures and is more cost-effective due to shorter operative time and less blood loss requirements.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 21 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 22 43%
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 25 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,273,512
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1,165
of 1,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,705
of 259,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 1,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 259,171 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 15 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.