| Title |
Multiexpandable cage for minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s112523 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey D Coe, James F Zucherman, Donald W Kucharzyk, Kornelis A Poelstra, Larry E Miller, Sandeep Kunwar |
| Abstract |
The increasing adoption of minimally invasive techniques for spine surgery in recent years has led to significant advancements in instrumentation for lumbar interbody fusion. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation is now a mature technology, but the role of expandable cages is still evolving. The capability to deliver a multiexpandable interbody cage with a large footprint through a narrow surgical cannula represents a significant advancement in spinal surgery technology. The purpose of this report is to describe a multiexpandable lumbar interbody fusion cage, including implant characteristics, intended use, surgical technique, preclinical testing, and early clinical experience. Results to date suggest that the multiexpandable cage allows a less invasive approach to posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery by minimizing iatrogenic risks associated with static or vertically expanding interbody prostheses while providing immediate vertebral height restoration, restoration of anatomic alignment, and excellent early-term clinical results. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 31% |
| Engineering | 4 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 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 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#235
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,015
of 348,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 348,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.