| Title |
Do Dynamic Cement-on-Cement Knee Spacers Provide Better Function and Activity During Two-stage Exchange?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-012-2332-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J. Jaekel, Judd S. Day, Gregg R. Klein, Harlan Levine, Javad Parvizi, Steven M. Kurtz |
| Abstract |
Implantation of an antibiotic bone cement spacer is used to treat infection of a TKA. Dynamic spacers fashioned with cement-on-cement articulating surfaces potentially facilitate patient mobility and reduce bone loss as compared with their static counterparts, while consisting of a biomaterial not traditionally used for load-bearing articulations. However, their direct impact on patient mobility and wear damage while implanted remains poorly understood. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 23% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 20 | 29% |
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 24 April 2012.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,962
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,188
of 173,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#69
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 173,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.