↓ Skip to main content

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1–L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Biomechanics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1–L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws
Published in
Clinical Biomechanics, January 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.10.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kingsley R. Chin, Anna G.U. Newcomb, Marco T. Reis, Phillip M. Reyes, Grace A. Hickam, Josue Gabriel, Fabio J.R. Pencle, Roger D. Sung, Neil R. Crawford

Abstract

The use of pedicle screws is the gold standard for supplemental posterior fixation in lateral interbody fusion. Information about the performance of transfacet pedicle screws compared to standard pedicle screws and rods in the upper lumbar spine with or without a lateral interbody fusion device in place is limited. Fifteen fresh frozen human cadaveric lumbar spine segments (T12-L4) were studied using standard pure moment flexibility tests. Specimens were divided into two groups to receive either bilateral transfacet pedicle screws (n=8) or bilateral pedicle screws (n=14). Stability of each motion segment (L1-L2 and L2-L3) was evaluated intact, with posterior instrumentation with an intact disc, with posterior instrumentation and a lateral interbody fusion device in place, and following cyclic loading with the interbody device and posterior instrumentation still in place. Both raw values of motion (range of motion, lax zone and stiff zone) and normalized mobility (ratios to intact) were analyzed for each case. In terms of immediate stability, transfacet pedicle screws performed equivalent to similarly sized pedicle screws, both with intact disc and with lateral interbody fusion device in all directions of loading. Stability following cyclic loading decreased significantly during lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior fixation with transfacet pedicle screws provides equivalent immediate stability to similarly sized pedicle screws. However, in the presence of a lateral interbody fusion device, pedicle screws seem to resist loosening more and may be a better option for fusion in the upper lumbar spine.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 31%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 9 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 31%

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
#7,684,099
of 12,297,856 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biomechanics
#825
of 1,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,483
of 254,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biomechanics
#35
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,297,856 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 254,795 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.