↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative morbidity and complications in minimal access surgery techniques in obese patients with degenerative lumbar disease

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Perioperative morbidity and complications in minimal access surgery techniques in obese patients with degenerative lumbar disease
Published in
European Spine Journal, January 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00586-011-1689-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wolfgang Senker, Christian Meznik, Alexander Avian, Andrea Berghold

Abstract

The medical profession is increasingly confronted with the epidemic phenomenon of obesity. Its impact on spine surgery is not quite clear. Published data concerning the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the spine among obese patients is scarce. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to evaluate perioperative as well as postoperative complication rates in MIS fusion of the lumbar spine in obese, overweight and normal patients classified according to their body mass index. Lumbar MIS fusion was performed by means of TLIF procedures and/or posterolateral fusion alone. A laminotomy was performed in patients with spinal stenosis. Of 72 patients, 39 underwent additional laminotomy for spinal stenosis. No differences were registered in respect of the numbers of fused segments or cages. Any harmful event occurring peri- or postoperatively was noted and included in the statistical analysis. No infection at the site of surgery or severe wound healing disorder was encountered. We registered no difference in blood loss, drainage, or the length of the hospital stay between the three BMI groups. We also observed no difference in complication rates between the three groups. This study confirms the low soft tissue damage of minimal access surgery techniques, which is an important type of surgery in obese patients. The smaller approach helps to minimize infections and wound healing disorders. Moreover, deeper regions of wounds are clearly visualized with the aid of tubular retractors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
United Arab Emirates 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 18 25%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 62%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 21%
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 03 December 2011.
All research outputs
#15,239,825
of 22,659,164 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,008
of 4,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,533
of 182,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,659,164 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 4,593 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 51% 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 182,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.