↓ Skip to main content

How to reduce osteopenia in total knee arthroplasty?

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
How to reduce osteopenia in total knee arthroplasty?
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00590-018-2290-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claude Schwartz

Abstract

Osteopenia of the front half of the distal femur is a well-known problem after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with secondary issues after years, especially when must be addressed fractures or revisions for loosening. Stress shielding has been recognized as a cause in different biomechanical studies of the bone. It was logical to look for a solution by changing the design to minimize stress shielding behind the femoral shield. It was proved that radiological measure of bone density was reliable although not so early and accurate as densitometry. We used a shield without posterior fixation of the trochlea in a series of 21 TKA with radiological measures, preoperative, at 3 months and at 5 years. We compared the results with those of a series of classical TKA in the same category of age and sex. The TKA without trochlea posterior fixation presented a significantly reduced osteopenia compared to the classical design of the femoral shield. It seems that the non-fixation of the posterior surface of the trochlea may reduce osteopenia in TKA and so the risk of fractures and complications when revision surgery. 2a.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Librarian 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Materials Science 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 50%
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 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,822,062
of 25,047,899 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#313
of 941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,861
of 306,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,047,899 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 941 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 306,713 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 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.