↓ Skip to main content

Overcorrection of lumbar lordosis for adult spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance: comparison of radiographic outcomes between overcorrection and undercorrection

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2016
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 (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Overcorrection of lumbar lordosis for adult spinal deformity with sagittal imbalance: comparison of radiographic outcomes between overcorrection and undercorrection
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4441-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung-Hee Lee, Ki-Tack Kim, Sang-Hun Lee, Kyung-Chung Kang, Hyun-Seok Oh, Young-Jun Kim, Hyuk Jung

Abstract

To determine the correlation of the difference between postoperative lumbar lordosis (LL) and ideal LL with the sagittal vertical axis (SVA) at the final follow-up in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD). Fifty-one patients with degenerative lumbar kyphosis (DLK) (mean age 66.5 years) who underwent surgical correction with a minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Based on the difference between postoperative LL and ideal LL using the Korean version of Legaye's formula, we divided the 51 patients into two groups: overcorrection (degree of postoperative LL > ideal LL) and undercorrection (degree of postoperative LL < ideal LL). Our clinical series of patients comprised 24 in the overcorrection and 27 in the undercorrection group. No significant differences were found in preoperative pelvic incidence (PI 52.6° vs. 57.3°), sacral slope (SS 23.3° vs. 18.3°), LL (-6.9° vs. -2.3°), thoracic kyphosis (TK 4.7° vs. 4.9°) and SVA (140 vs. 139 mm) except pelvic tilt (PT 29.4° vs. 39.0°), between the two groups. All the patients in the overcorrection group and 16 in the undercorrection group achieved postoperative optimal sagittal balance based on SVA ≤ 50 mm. In addition, significant differences in PT (10.5° vs. 26.7°), SS (42.1° vs. 30.6°), LL (-64.3° vs. -37.1°), TK (22.6° vs. 15.8°), and SVA (-1 vs. 41 mm) between the two groups were observed postoperatively. Furthermore, four patients (16.7 %) in the overcorrection group and eight (50 %) in the undercorrection group had sagittal decompensation at the final follow-up. Our results showed that the difference between postoperative LL and ideal LL had a significant correlation with postoperative and final follow-up SVA in our clinical series. Overcorrection of LL is an effective treatment modality to maintain optimal sagittal alignment in patients with DLK; this suggests that it should be considered in preoperative planning for patients with ASD with sagittal imbalance.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 59%
Psychology 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 28%
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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#15,359,595
of 22,849,304 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,025
of 4,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,327
of 297,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#50
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,849,304 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 4,640 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 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 297,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 58% of its contemporaries.