↓ Skip to main content

Is vertebral body stenting in combination with CaP cement superior to kyphoplasty?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Is vertebral body stenting in combination with CaP cement superior to kyphoplasty?
Published in
European Spine Journal, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5717-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Schützenberger, S. M. Schwarz, L. Greiner, O. Holub, S. Grabner, W. Huf, A. Sailler, C. Fialka

Abstract

In the evolution of the minimally invasive treatment of vertebral compression fractures, vertebral body stenting (VBS) was developed to reduce intraoperative and secondary loss of vertebral height. Particularly in combination with the usage of biodegradable cement, the influence of VBS on the rate of intraoperative complications and long-term outcome is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) and VBS regarding their long-term clinical and radiological outcome in combination with calcium phosphate (CaP) application instead of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). This retrospective study included 49 patients with fresh mono-segmental thoracolumbar fractures without neurological signs treated with VBS or BKP and CaP cement (Calcibone). The outcome was evaluated with the visual analogue pain scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability score (ODI), and radiologically assessed. In the course of the radiological follow-up, the VBS group showed statistically significant less vertebral height loss than the BKP group. However, with respect to VAS and ODI scores there were no statistically significant differences between the VBS and BKP group in the clinical follow-up. The rate of cement leakage was comparable in both groups. Both techniques facilitated good clinical results in combination with absorbable cement augmentation. In particular, the VBS enabled us to benefit from the advantages of the resorbable isothermic CaP cement with an improved radiological outcome in the long term compared to BKP. However, there was a mentionable loss of reduction in the follow-up in both groups compared to previously published data with PMMA cement. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 41%
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Master 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Engineering 2 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,422,940
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,779
of 4,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,668
of 331,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#28
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,689 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 58% 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 331,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 61% of its contemporaries.