| Title |
Nanotechnology for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Nanomedicine, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijn.s85037 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chunxia Gao, Donglei Wei, Huilin Yang, Tao Chen, Lei Yang |
| Abstract |
Osteoporosis is a serious public health problem affecting hundreds of millions of aged people worldwide, with severe consequences including vertebral fractures that are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. To augment or treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures, a number of surgical approaches including minimally invasive vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty have been developed. However, these approaches face problems and difficulties with efficacy and long-term stability. Recent advances and progress in nanotechnology are opening up new opportunities to improve the surgical procedures for treating osteoporotic vertebral fractures. This article reviews the improvements enabled by new nanomaterials and focuses on new injectable biomaterials like bone cements and surgical instruments for treating vertebral fractures. This article also provides an introduction to osteoporotic vertebral fractures and current clinical treatments, along with the rationale and efficacy of utilizing nanomaterials to modify and improve biomaterials or instruments. In addition, perspectives on future trends with injectable bone cements and surgical instruments enhanced by nanotechnology are provided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 65 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 17% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 22% |
| Engineering | 10 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 14% |
| Materials Science | 5 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 26% |
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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,087
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,917
of 276,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#81
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 276,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.