↓ Skip to main content

Complete Cranial Iliac Osteotomy to Approach the Lumbosacral Foramen

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Complete Cranial Iliac Osteotomy to Approach the Lumbosacral Foramen
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Dyall, Hugo Schmökel

Abstract

An approach using a complete cranial iliac osteotomy (CCIO) to access the lumbosacral (LS) foramen in dogs from lateral was developed using cadavers and applied in a clinical patient with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis (DLSS). The foraminal enlargement in the cadavers and the patient was documented on postoperative CT scans. The preoperative CT scan of the patient showed moderate cranial telescoping of the sacral roof and a moderate central disk protrusion, leading to moderate to severe compression of the cauda equina. In addition, there was lateral spondylosis with consequential stenosis of the right LS foramen. The right L7 nerve had lost its fat attenuation and appeared thickened. After a routine L7S1 dorsal laminectomy with a partial discectomy, a CCIO was performed, providing good access to the LS foramen and the adhesions around the proximal L7 nerve caudoventral to the foramen. The osteotomy was stabilized with a locking plate and a cerclage wire. The dog recovered well from the procedures and after 36 h, the dog walked normally and was discharged from the hospital. Eight and 16 weeks later, the signs of the DLSS had markedly improved. From these data, it can be concluded that the CCIO is a useful approach to the LS foramen and intervertebral disk in selected patients with DLSS, giving good access to the structures around the LS foramen.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 30%
Student > Master 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 16 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Unspecified 1 3%
Unknown 10 30%
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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,893,544
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#3,499
of 6,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,439
of 312,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#38
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,291 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 312,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 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.