↓ Skip to main content

Immunohistological analysis of extracted anterior cruciate ligament graft impinged against posterior cruciate ligament.

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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.
Title
Immunohistological analysis of extracted anterior cruciate ligament graft impinged against posterior cruciate ligament.
Published in
Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1758-2555-3-26
Pubmed ID
Abstract

A young female athlete suffered from the residual instability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring autograft. The 3-dimensional (3-D) CT scan showed the "high noon" positioning of the primary femoral bone tunnel. The revision surgery with anatomic double-bundle technique was performed two years after the primary surgery and the femoral tunnels were created with the assistance of the 3-D fluoroscopy-based navigation. An arthroscopic examination confirmed the ACL graft impingement against posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) when the knee was deeply flexed. The histological analysis of the resected primary ACL graft showed local inflammatory infiltration, enhanced synovial coverage and vascularization at the impinged site. The enhanced expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) at the impinged area when compared with non-impinged area was observed on immunohistochemical analysis. Abnormal mechanical stress by the impingement against PCL might have induced chronic inflammation and VEGF overexpression.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 18%
Researcher 5 18%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Engineering 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 32%

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 03 November 2011.
All research outputs
#2,671,663
of 5,038,248 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#26
of 50 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,998
of 74,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation, Therapy & Technology
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 50 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one scored the same or higher as 24 of them.
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 74,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 3 of them.