↓ Skip to main content

Non-Syndromic Spinal Schwannomas: A Novel Classification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Non-Syndromic Spinal Schwannomas: A Novel Classification
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ibrahim Sun, M. Necmettin Pamir

Abstract

Schwannomas are the most frequent primary tumors of the spine with an incidence of 0.3-0.5/100,000 person per year. Current treatment for non-syndromic spinal schwannomas is total resection of the tumor with preservation of neurovascular structures. This study aims to report neurologic and radiologic outcome following treatment of non-syndromic spinal schwannomas along with a novel tumor classification used in our clinic. A retrospective case series was carried out with a patient sample of 82 male and female patients with non-syndromic spinal schwannomas. All patient data were retrospectively collected from the hospital records. As a routine procedure, after admittance and primary evaluation, patients' tumors were classified using CT or MRI in accordance with our proposed classification method, which employs a dual designation method with tree groups (A, B, and C) for tumor volume and four types (I, II, III, and IV) for tumor localization. Subsequent resection surgery was followed by neurological assessments and follow up at 45th, 180th, and 360th postoperative day. Along with Karnofsky performance status scale, pain, sensory deficits, and motor weakness were scored to assess neurologic recovery. Our finding indicates that patients with different tumor types significantly differ in their neurological scores and show consistent but differential neurological recovery at early and late time points postsurgery. Complications during and postsurgery were minimal, occurring only in two patients. Our findings further reinforce the established safety of total resection operations and indicate that our proposed classification is a simple, effective tool that has proven helpful in preoperative planning and avoiding unnecessary surgical approaches.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Other 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 39%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Unspecified 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 21 37%
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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,434,884
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,888
of 11,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,754
of 283,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#146
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 283,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.