↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Clinical application of arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Clinical application of arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s140272
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peiming Liu, Yong Guo, Ying Wen, Wei Wang

Abstract

Pilon fracture is so complex that its therapy poses a great challenge to surgeons. Few studies have compared arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF), and an optimal choice of surgical therapy remains unclear in patients with type III Pilon fracture. Moreover, to our knowledge, very few studies have specifically evaluated arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture. The current study was performed to observe the clinical application of arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy, compared with EFLIF, in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture. There were 230 Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture assigned to undergo EFLIF (group A, n=115) or arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy (group B, n=115), and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Age, sex, causes, sides and types of Pilon fractures were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). Compared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy achieved a better reduction result, bone union and Mazur system (P<0.05 for all). Patient satisfaction, screw loosening and infection prevalence were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). There was no skin necrosis in the two groups. Traumatic arthritis had a significantly lower prevalence in participants with arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy than EFLIF (P<0.05 for all). Compared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy for type III Pilon fracture significantly improved reduction result, bone union and functional status, and decreased traumatic arthritis, demonstrating that arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy is an optimal choice for type III Pilon fracture in Chinese elderly.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 23%
Other 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 5 38%

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 28 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,760,940
of 12,211,623 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,013
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,635
of 338,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#43
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,211,623 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 338,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.