↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Risk Factors and Predictors of Significant Chondral Surface Change From Primary to Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A MOON and MARS Cohort Study
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1177/0363546517741484
Pubmed ID
Authors

The MARS Group, Robert A. Magnussen, James R. Borchers, Angela D. Pedroza, Laura J. Huston, Amanda K. Haas, Kurt P. Spindler, Rick W. Wright, Christopher C. Kaeding, Christina R. Allen, Allen F. Anderson, Daniel E. Cooper, Thomas M. DeBerardino, Warren R. Dunn, Brett A. Lantz, Barton Mann, Michael J. Stuart, John P. Albright, Annunziato Amendola, Jack T. Andrish, Christopher C. Annunziata, Robert A. Arciero, Bernard R. Bach, Champ L. Baker, Arthur R. Bartolozzi, Keith M. Baumgarten, Jeffery R. Bechler, Jeffrey H. Berg, Geoffrey A. Bernas, Stephen F. Brockmeier, Robert H. Brophy, Charles A. Bush-Joseph, J. Brad Butler, John D. Campbell, James L. Carey, James E. Carpenter, Brian J. Cole, Jonathan M. Cooper, Charles L. Cox, R. Alexander Creighton, Diane L. Dahm, Tal S. David, David C. Flanigan, Robert W. Frederick, Theodore J. Ganley, Elizabeth A. Garofoli, Charles J. Gatt, Steven R. Gecha, James Robert Giffin, Sharon L. Hame, Jo A. Hannafin, Christopher D. Harner, Norman Lindsay Harris, Keith S. Hechtman, Elliott B. Hershman, Rudolf G. Hoellrich, Timothy M. Hosea, David C. Johnson, Timothy S. Johnson, Morgan H. Jones, Ganesh V. Kamath, Thomas E. Klootwyk, Bruce A. Levy, C. Benjamin, G. Peter Maiers, Robert G. Marx, Matthew J. Matava, Gregory M. Mathien, David R. McAllister, Eric C. McCarty, Robert G. McCormack, Bruce S. Miller, Carl W. Nissen, Daniel F. O’Neill, Brett D. Owens, Richard D. Parker, Mark L. Purnell, Arun J. Ramappa, Michael A. Rauh, Arthur C. Rettig, Jon K. Sekiya, Kevin G. Shea, Orrin H. Sherman, James R. Slauterbeck, Matthew V. Smith, Jeffrey T. Spang, Steven J. Svoboda, Timothy N. Taft, Joachim J. Tenuta, Edwin M. Tingstad, Armando F. Vidal, Darius G. Viskontas, Richard A. White, James S. Williams, Michelle L. Wolcott, Brian R. Wolf, James J. York

Abstract

Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage. Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or >25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery. A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had >33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P < .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had <33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P < .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment. Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 16 12%
Other 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 5%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 50 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Sports and Recreations 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 55 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,962,303
of 29,033,341 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#880
of 6,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,034
of 456,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#19
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,033,341 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 456,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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 71% of its contemporaries.