↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiological trends in spine surgery over 10 years in a multicenter database

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Epidemiological trends in spine surgery over 10 years in a multicenter database
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5513-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuyoshi Kobayashi, Kei Ando, Yoshihiro Nishida, Naoki Ishiguro, Shiro Imagama

Abstract

There are few epidemiological studies of spinal surgery in Asia and none in Japan. The goal of this study was to review spine surgeries performed in our group between 2004 and 2015 in a cross-sectional study, with a focus on the effects of the superaging society on the characteristics and trends of spinal surgeries. A retrospective review was performed for all 45,831 spinal surgeries conducted between 2004 and 2015 and recorded in our prospective multicenter database. During the study period, there was a significant increase in annual spine surgeries (p < 0.05). The proportion of elderly patients (aged ≥ 70) also increased, and the mean age at the time of surgery significantly increased from 54.6 years in 2004 to 63.7 years in 2015 (p < 0.05). Regarding the etiology, there were significant increases in degenerative disease (p < 0.01) and osteoporotic vertebral fracture, and a significant decrease in rheumatic spondylosis from 2004 to 2015 (p < 0.01). Instrumentation surgery increased over time, with the performance of MIS, BKP and LLIF as new procedures in recent years (p < 0.01). The mean reoperation rate was 2.0% and this rate did not change significantly over time, although the rate of reoperation due to surgical site infection significantly increased from 0.9 to 1.5% (p < 0.05). Our data showed marked increases in the number of spine surgeries, the age of patients, and the number of surgeries for degenerative diseases. This large-scale study provides indicators for planning the future development of spine surgery and for treatment of spinal diseases in daily practice. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 13%
Other 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 42 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 33%
Engineering 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 50 48%
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 01 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,645,475
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,509
of 4,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,503
of 445,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#36
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,687 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 445,527 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.