| Title |
Perioperative course and accuracy of screw positioning in conventional, open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided, pedicle screw placement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, March 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-011-1729-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Rainer Kantelhardt, Ramon Martinez, Stefan Baerwinkel, Ralf Burger, Alf Giese, Veit Rohde |
| Abstract |
Robotic-guided and percutaneous pedicle screw placement are emerging technologies. We here report a retrospective cohort analysis comparing conventional open to open robotic-guided and percutaneous robotic-guided pedicle screw placement. 112 patient records and CT scans were analyzed concerning the intraoperative and perioperative course. 35 patients underwent percutaneous, 20 open robotic-guided and 57 open conventional pedicle screw placement. 94.5% of robot-assisted and 91.4% of conventionally placed screws were found to be accurate. Percutaneous robotic and open robotic-guided subgroups did not differ obviously. Average X-ray exposure per screw was 34 s in robotic-guided compared to 77 s in conventional cases. Subgroup analysis indicates that percutaneously operated patients required less opioids, had a shorter hospitalization and lower rate of adverse events in the perioperative period. The use of robotic guidance significantly increased accuracy of screw positioning while reducing the X-ray exposure. Patients seem to have a better perioperative course following percutaneous procedures. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 22 | 12% |
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 34 | 18% |
| Unknown | 58 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 36% |
| Engineering | 27 | 14% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 4% |
| Unknown | 72 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 05 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,918,734
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#272
of 4,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,217
of 108,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,594 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 108,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.