↓ Skip to main content

Total ankle replacement revisited.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, February 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Total ankle replacement revisited.
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, February 2000
DOI 10.2519/jospt.2000.30.2.56
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The surgical treatment of painful, end-stage ankle arthritis includes ankle arthrodesis and total ankle replacement. In the past decade, total ankle replacement has become a viable alternative to ankle arthrodesis. Modern implant designs either involve a syndesmosis fusion and resurfacing of the medial and lateral recesses of the ankle joint or the use of a 3-component, mobile bearing implant. In limited clinical series, the early results of both these prosthetic design approaches are encouraging. In selected patients, ankle arthroplasty is an effective approach to relieving pain and improving function. The purposes of this paper are to review the clinical results from total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis; discuss indications, contraindications, design features, postoperative rehabilitation, and initial results for the major current total ankle designs; and present concepts for future total ankle development. In particular, this article explores the advantages and concerns with 2 prevalent but different design approaches. It also discusses future directions for total ankle replacement.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 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 %
United States 3 5%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 62 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Engineering 9 14%
Sports and Recreations 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 March 2025.
All research outputs
#7,591,124
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#1,443
of 2,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,979
of 158,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 158,736 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.