↓ Skip to main content

Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery in the Elderly: Does It Make Sense?

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgery, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery in the Elderly: Does It Make Sense?
Published in
Neurosurgery, October 2015
DOI 10.1227/neu.0000000000000941
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

: Lumbar degenerative disease can have varied pathoanatomy, with stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and scoliosis contributing to significant pain and disability. Among appropriately selected patients, surgical intervention can treat both back pain and leg pain and improve quality of life in a cost-effective manner with an acceptable safety profile. The evolution of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques offers the potential to decrease the physiological impact of surgery and to improve the complication profile while achieving the same spine surgical objectives. The utility of such techniques among elderly patients >65 years of age has not been rigorously evaluated, and this systematic review sought to define the utility and safety of MIS spinal surgery for decompression, interbody fusion, and deformity correction in this population. Review of 2 studies for MIS lumbar decompression reveals that the majority of elderly patients exhibit significant improvements in pain (change in visual analog score for leg pain, 3.4 points) and disability (change in Oswestry Disability Index, 19 points), with inadvertent durotomy in 3% of patients. Review of 4 studies for MIS lumbar interbody fusion reveals robust improvement in pain (change in visual analog score for leg pain, 3.4 points; change in visual analog score for back pain, 7.2 points), with inadvertent durotomy in 5% of patients. Narrative review was performed for adult degenerative deformity correction, revealing that MIS techniques are feasible for managing such patients with acceptable rates of osseous union and complication. On the basis of largely low-quality, retrospective evidence, we recommend that elderly patients should not be excluded from MIS interventions for symptomatic lumbar degenerative spinal disease. MIS, minimally invasive surgeryODI, Oswestry Disability IndexVAS, visual analog score.

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 104 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 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Other 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 53%
Engineering 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 34 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 10 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgery
#4,946
of 5,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,058
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgery
#42
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.