| Title |
An effect comparison of teriparatide and bisphosphonate on posterior lumbar interbody fusion in patients with osteoporosis: a prospective cohort study and preliminary data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-015-4342-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pyung Goo Cho, Gyu Yeul Ji, Dong Ah Shin, Yoon Ha, Do Heum Yoon, Keung Nyun Kim |
| Abstract |
Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy of teriparatide for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in osteoporotic women. Forty-seven osteoporotic patients underwent PLIF with pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar stenosis and instability. Patients were divided into two groups. The teriparatide group (n = 23) was injected subcutaneously with teriparatide (20 μg daily) for 3-month cycles alternating with 3-month periods of oral sodium alendronate for 12 months. The bisphosphonate group (n = 24) was administered oral sodium alendronate (91.37 mg/week) for ≥1 year. Serial plain radiography, computed tomography, and bone mineral densitometry (BMD) evaluations were performed. Fusion rate, bony fusion duration, and T score changes were evaluated. Clinical data [pain scores, Prolo's functional scale, and Oswestry disability index (ODI)] were also serially evaluated. The teriparatide group showed earlier fusion than the bisphosphonate group. The average period of bone fusion was 6.0 ± 4.8 months in the teriparatide group but 10.4 ± 7.2 months in the bisphosphonate group. The bone fusion rate in the teriparatide group was higher than that in the bisphosphonate group at 6 months; however, there was no difference 12 and 24 months after surgery. Pain scores and ODI were not significantly different between groups. BMD scores in the teriparatide group were significantly improved compared with the bisphosphonate group 2 years after surgery. There was no significant improvement in overall fusion rate and clinical outcome in our patients after injection of teriparatide, but the teriparatide group showed faster bony union and highly improved BMD scores. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 45% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,101,117
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,512
of 4,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,441
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#15
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,639 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.