↓ Skip to main content

Editorial Commentary: When Is Too Small, Too Small? Allograft Augmentation of Autologous Hamstring Grafts During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
16 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: When Is Too Small, Too Small? Allograft Augmentation of Autologous Hamstring Grafts During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Published in
Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.02.031
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Soft tissue allograft augmentation of small hamstring autografts, so-called hybrid grafts, has been proposed as an option during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). However, notable concerns exist with both small autograft use and allograft use during ACL-R, particularly in young, active patients. We currently choose to augment hamstring autografts with diameters <8.0 mm, adding only enough allograft to create a hybrid graft with an overall diameter no larger than 8.5 mm. Based on the available evidence, surgeons continue to seek the tipping point where the benefit of additional allograft tissue exceeds the consequence of its use.

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 7 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 16 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 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#10,176,454
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#1,895
of 5,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,425
of 370,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery
#34
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 370,686 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 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 54% of its contemporaries.