↓ Skip to main content

How Does the Level of Nerve Root Resection in En Bloc Sacrectomy Influence Patient‐Reported Outcomes?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
How Does the Level of Nerve Root Resection in En Bloc Sacrectomy Influence Patient‐Reported Outcomes?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4794-3
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

For patients with sacral tumors, who are well enough for surgery, en bloc resection is the preferred treatment. Survival, postoperative complications, and recurrent rates have been described, but patient-reported outcomes often are not included in these studies. The purposes of this study were (1) to compare patient-reported outcomes after en bloc sacrectomy, based on the level of sacral nerve root resection, in terms of mental health, physical health, bowel function, and sexual function; and (2) to assess differences in terms of mental health, physical health, and pain between patients with and without a colostomy. A total of 74 patients, of whom 58 (78%) were diagnosed with chordoma, were surveyed between February 2012 and October 2014. This represented 48% of patients with sacral chordoma who were alive and who had been treated with a transverse sacral resection between June 2000 and August 2013 at three institutions with a minimum followup of 6 months (mean, 59 months; range, 6-255 months). We chose 6 months because we believe that neurologic deficits generally are stable by this point and that patients generally have recovered from the operation by this time. Patients were divided into five groups based on the most caudal nerve root spared: L5 (N = 10), S1 (N = 22), S2 (N = 17), S3 (N = 18), and S4 (N = 7). Only postoperative outcomes were collected using the National institute of Health's Patient Reported Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health survey, PROMIS Pain Interference survey, PROMIS Pain Intensity survey, PROMIS Sexual Function survey, and the Modified Obstruction and Defecation Score survey. Differences between two adjacent levels were found in terms of mental health, physical health, and sexual function. Patients in whom the S2 nerve roots were spared had a lower mental health score (median = 44, interquartile range [IQR] = 41-51) than patients in whom the S3 nerve roots were spared (median = 53, IQR = 48-56, q = 0.049). Patients in whom the S2 nerve roots were spared had a slightly lower physical health score (median = 42, IQR = 40-51) than patients in whom the S3 nerve roots were spared (median = 47, IQR = 45-54, q = 0.043). Patients in whom the S1 roots were spared (median = 1.0, range = 1.0-1.0) had a lower orgasm score than patients in whom the S2 nerve roots were spared (median = 3, range = 2-5, q = 0.027). No differences in terms of mental health, physical health, or pain were found between the colostomy group and the no colostomy group. The combination of our findings can be used to further educate patients and discuss expectations. In an operative setting, these data can be considered when deciding to place a colostomy. Level III, therapeutic study.

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 2 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 118 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 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Master 13 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 44 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 May 2017.
All research outputs
#24,235,216
of 34,526,284 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#6,745
of 9,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,395
of 353,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#81
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,526,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 353,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.