↓ Skip to main content

Editorial Commentary: Our Mentors Were Right, New Is Not Always Better: The Posterolateral Shoulder Trans‐Rotator Cuff Portal Is Safe for SLAP Repairs

Overview of attention for article published in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Editorial Commentary: Our Mentors Were Right, New Is Not Always Better: The Posterolateral Shoulder Trans‐Rotator Cuff Portal Is Safe for SLAP Repairs
Published in
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.11.006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Shoulder SLAP repair anchors have traditionally been placed through a posterolateral trans-rotator cuff "Port of Wilmington" portal. Alternative anterolateral portals have been proposed to place superior glenoid anchors that seemingly avoid traversing the rotator cuff via the rotator interval but put the suprascapular nerve at risk. A recent cadaveric study demonstrated that the traditional posterolateral portal safely traversed the infraspinatus muscle belly in all specimens, which was in contrast to the anterolateral portal that traversed the supraspinatus tendon in all specimens. In addition, 80% of anchors placed through the anterolateral portal perforated the posterior glenoid in proximity to the suprascapular nerve. As originally suggested nearly 20 years ago, the posterolateral Port of Wilmington trajectory is safe on both the rotator cuff and glenoid side for SLAP repairs.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 9 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 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 22%
Unknown 3 33%
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 14 April 2018.
All research outputs
#24,765,127
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#4,059
of 5,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#340,034
of 492,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#79
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 492,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.