↓ Skip to main content

Hemiarthroplasty for irreparable distal humeral fractures: medium-term follow-up of 42 patients.

Overview of attention for article published in The Bone & Joint Journal, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Hemiarthroplasty for irreparable distal humeral fractures: medium-term follow-up of 42 patients.
Published in
The Bone & Joint Journal, October 2015
DOI 10.1302/0301-620x.97b10.35421
Pubmed ID
Authors

J Nestorson, C Ekholm, M Etzner, L Adolfsson

Abstract

We report our experience of performing an elbow hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of comminuted distal humeral fractures in the elderly patients. A cohort of 42 patients (three men and 39 women, mean age 72; 56 to 84) were reviewed at a mean of 34.3 months (24 to 61) after surgery. Functional outcome was measured with the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and range of movement. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (DASH) was used as a patient rated evaluation. Complications and ulnar nerve function were recorded. Plain radiographs were obtained to assess prosthetic loosening, olecranon wear and heterotopic bone formation. The mean extension deficit was 23.5° (0° to 60°) and mean flexion was 126.8° (90° to 145°) giving a mean arc of 105.5° (60° to 145°). The mean MEPS was 90 (50 to 100) and a mean DASH score of 20 (0 to 63). Four patients had additional surgery for limited range of movement and one for partial instability. One elbow was revised due to loosening, two patients had sensory ulnar nerve symptoms, and radiographic signs of mild olecranon wear was noted in five patients. Elbow hemiarthroplasty for comminuted intra-articular distal humeral fractures produces reliable medium-term results with functional outcome and complication rates, comparable with open reduction and internal fixation and total elbow arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1377-84.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 19%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 23%
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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from The Bone & Joint Journal
#4,150
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,584
of 274,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Bone & Joint Journal
#39
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 274,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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.