↓ Skip to main content

Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Robotic-guided sacro-pelvic fixation using S2 alar-iliac screws: feasibility and accuracy
Published in
European Spine Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4639-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaobang Hu, Isador H. Lieberman

Abstract

To review our experience with robotic guided S2-alar iliac (S2AI) screw placement. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent S2AI fixation with robotic guidance. Screw placement and deviation from the preoperative plan were assessed by fusing preoperative CT (with the planned S2AI screws) to postoperative CT. The software's measurement tool was used to compare the planned vs. actual screw placements in axial and lateral views, at entry point to the S2 pedicle and at a 30 mm depth at the screws' mid-shaft, in a resolution of 0.1 mm. Medical charts were reviewed for technical issues and intra-operative complications. 35 S2AI screws were reviewed in 18 patients. The patients' mean age was 60 years. No intra-operative complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws were reported and robotic guidance was successful in all 35 screws. Post-operative CT scans showed that all trajectories were accurate. No violations of the iliac cortex or breaches of the anterior sacrum were noted. At the entry point, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 3.0 ± 2.2 mm in the axial plane and 1.8 ± 1.6 mm in the lateral plane. At 30 mm depth, the screw deviated from the pre-operative plan by 2.1 ± 1.3 mm in the axial plane and 1.2 ± 1.1 mm in the lateral plane. Robotic guided S2AI screw placement is feasible and accurate. No screw malpositions or complications that related to the placement of S2AI screws occurred in this series. Larger studies are needed to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of robotic guided sacral-pelvic fixation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 41%
Engineering 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 21 39%
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 20 March 2017.
All research outputs
#17,282,206
of 25,381,151 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,216
of 5,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,345
of 354,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#25
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,248 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 354,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 74% of its contemporaries.