↓ Skip to main content

Experimental validation of a patient-specific model of orthotic action in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Experimental validation of a patient-specific model of orthotic action in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis
Published in
European Spine Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4511-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Vergari, Isabelle Courtois, Eric Ebermeyer, Houssam Bouloussa, Raphaël Vialle, Wafa Skalli

Abstract

Personalized modeling of brace action has potential in improving brace efficacy in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Model validation and simulation uncertainty are rarely addressed, limiting the clinical implementation of personalized models. We hypothesized that a thorough validation of a personalized finite element model (FEM) of brace action would highlight potential means of improving the model. Forty-two AIS patients were included retrospectively and prospectively. Personalized FEMs of pelvis, spine and ribcage were built from stereoradiographies. Brace action was simulated through soft cylindrical pads acting on the ribcage and through displacements applied to key vertebrae. Simulation root mean squared errors (RMSEs) were calculated by comparison with the actual brace action (quantified through clinical indices, vertebral positions and orientations) observed in in-brace stereoradiographies. Simulation RMSEs of Cobb angle and vertebral apical axial rotation was lower than measurement uncertainty in 79 % of the patients. Pooling all patients and clinical indices, 87 % of the indices had lower RMSEs than the measurement uncertainty. In-depth analysis suggests that personalization of spinal functional units mechanical properties could improve the simulation's accuracy, but the model gave good results, thus justifying further research on its clinical application.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 35%
Engineering 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 27%
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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,645
of 4,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,964
of 299,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#72
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 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 4,641 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. 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 299,532 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 134 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.