| Title |
Postoperative K-line conversion from negative to positive is independently associated with a better surgical outcome after posterior decompression with instrumented fusion for K-line negative cervical ossification of the posterior ligament
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-018-5505-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Masao Koda, Takeo Furuya, Junya Saito, Yasushi Ijima, Mitsuhiro Kitamura, Seiji Ohtori, Sumihisa Orita, Kazuhide Inage, Tetsuya Abe, Hiroshi Noguchi, Toru Funayama, Hiroshi Kumagai, Kosei Miura, Katsuya Nagashima, Masashi Yamazaki |
| Abstract |
Addition of posterior instrumented fusion to laminoplasty (posterior decompression with instrumented fusion: PDF) can improve the surgical outcome of patients with K-line (-) cervical ossification of the longitudinal ligament (OPLL) compared with laminoplasty alone. We sought to elucidate the factors that are significantly associated with a better outcome after PDF for K-line (-) OPLL. The present study included 38 patients who underwent PDF for K-line (-) OPLL and were followed up for at least 1 year after surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed using Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores for cervical myelopathy and the recovery rate was calculated. Patients who belonged to the upper quartile of all the patients according to rank order of the JOA score recovery rate were considered to have a good outcome. The correlations between good outcome, patient factors and imaging assessments were analyzed statistically. Univariate analyses showed that postoperative conversion of K-line from (-) to (+) (p = 0.004), no increase in the sagittal vertical axis from the center of gravity of the head to C7 (p = 0.07), and a lower grade of preoperative intramedullary T2-signal intensity (p = 0.03) were candidates for the association. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that postoperative K-line conversion from (-) to (+) is an independent factor that is significantly associated with a better surgical outcome (p = 0.04). Postoperative K-line conversion from (-) to (+) is a factor independently associated with a better surgical outcome. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 24% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 34% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 28% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 34% |
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 20 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,133,034
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,710
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,896
of 446,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#23
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 446,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.