| Title |
Graft use in the treatment of large and massive rotator cuff tears: an overview of techniques and modes of failure with MRI correlation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Skeletal Radiology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00256-018-3015-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kyle R. Duchman, Dayne T. Mickelson, Barrett A. Little, Thomas W. Hash, Devin B. Lemmex, Alison P. Toth, Grant E. Garrigues |
| Abstract |
Despite technical advances, repair of large or massive rotator cuff tears continues to demonstrate a relatively high rate of failure. Rotator cuff repair or superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using a variety of commercially available grafts provides a promising option in patients with tears that may be at high risk for failure or otherwise considered irreparable. There are three major graft constructs that exist when utilizing graft in rotator cuff repair or reconstruction: augmentation at the rotator cuff footprint, bridging, and SCR. Each construct has a unique appearance when evaluated using postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and each construct has unique sites that are predisposed to failure. Understanding the basic principles of these constructs can help the radiologist better evaluate the postoperative MRI appearance of these increasingly utilized procedures. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 17 | 41% |
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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#15,540,879
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#951
of 1,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,136
of 327,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#41
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,481 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 327,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.