↓ Skip to main content

Radiographic Risk Factors and Signs of Abductor Tears in the Hip

Overview of attention for article published in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Radiographic Risk Factors and Signs of Abductor Tears in the Hip
Published in
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.03.039
Pubmed ID
Authors

David E. Hartigan, Itay Perets, John P. Walsh, Mitchell R. Mohr, Edwin O. Chaharbakhshi, Leslie C. Yuen, Benjamin G. Domb

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify radiographic risk factors (RRFs) and radiographic signs of abductor tendon tears. Between April 2008 and October 2015, patients with intraoperative diagnosis of partial- or full-thickness abductor tear noted at the time of open or endoscopic treatment were included in this study. Exclusion criteria included lack of preoperative standard supine pelvic radiograph, lack of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or abductor tear not present at the time of operative intervention. Patients were matched by age ±5 years, gender, and body mass index ±5 with patients with no abductor pathology by clinical exam and MRI. A standardized supine anterior-posterior pelvis radiograph was performed on all patients. The radiographs were evaluated for RRF (pelvic width, body weight moment arm, abductor moment arm, abductor angle, pelvic height) and signs of abductor tendon pathology (greater trochanteric enthesophyte). Femoral version was measured on MRI when images were available. Statistical analysis was performed and included bivariate and multivariate analyses. There were 152 patients with abductor tears identified at the time of surgery out of 2,838 eligible patients matched with 125 patients without abductor tendon pathology. The study institution was unable to perform a 1:1 match because of the advanced age of the abductor tendon group, which led to a greater age in the abductor group (n = 58) versus the control group (n = 54; P = .01. In abductor group the average age was 58, and 137 of 152 (90%) patients were female; in the control group the average age was 54, with 111 of 125 (89%) patients being female. Abductor tear patients were treated with surgical repair. The RRFs found with bivariate analysis were an increased pelvic width (14.8 cm for abductor tears vs 14.3 cm for control; P < .001), body weight moment arm (11.1 cm vs 10.9 cm; P < .001), and abductor moment arm (7.8 cm vs 7.6 cm; P < .001); decreased femoral anteversion (7.6° vs 10.6°; P = .045); and enthesophyte presence (41% vs 3%; P < .001). Multivariate regression analysis of all variables showed that teardrop distance and enthesophyte presence were the 2 variables most predictive of abductor tears, and other variables did not significantly increase or decrease the likelihood of tear when these 2 variables were considered. The presence of an enthesophyte on the greater trochanter was notable for an odds ratio of 20.7 of having an abductor tear. Patients with abductor tears have a wider pelvis, longer abductor moment arm, and longer body weight moment arm and have greater trochanteric enthesophyte as noted on nearly half of patients with an abductor tear. Presence of an enthesophyte was noted to have an odds ratio of 20.7 and a positive predictive value of 94% for having an abductor tendon tear. The 2 variables predictive of abductor tendon tear when controlling for all variables were enthesophyte presence and teardrop distance, with no other variables significantly increasing or decreasing the likelihood of tear when these 2 variables were considered. Level III, retrospective comparative study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unknown 15 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#2,822
of 4,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,742
of 340,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#42
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,447 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 340,655 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 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.