↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Hydroxyapatite-doped polycaprolactone nanofiber membrane improves tendon–bone interface healing for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Hydroxyapatite-doped polycaprolactone nanofiber membrane improves tendon–bone interface healing for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s92099
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fei Han, Peng Zhang, Yaying Sun, Chao Lin, Peng Zhao, Jiwu Chen

Abstract

Hamstring tendon autograft is a routine graft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, ways of improving the healing between the tendon and bone is often overlooked in clinical practice. This issue can be addressed by using a biomimetic scaffold. Herein, a biomimetic nanofiber membrane of polycaprolactone/nanohydroxyapatite/collagen (PCL/nHAp/Col) is fabricated that mimics the composition of native bone tissue for promoting tendon-bone healing. This membrane has good cytocompatibility, allowing for osteoblast cell adhesion and growth and bone formation. As a result, MC3T3 cells reveal a higher mineralization level in PCL/nHAp/Col membrane compared with PCL membrane alone. Further in vivo studies in ACL reconstruction in a rabbit model shows that PCL/nHAp/Col-wrapped tendon may afford superior tissue integration to nonwrapped tendon in the interface between the tendon and host bone as well as improved mechanical strength. This study shows that PCL/nHAp/Col nanofiber membrane wrapping of autologous tendon is effective for improving tendon healing with host bone in ACL reconstruction.

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 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 > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 28%
Engineering 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 December 2015.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#2,088
of 4,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,282
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#50
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 395,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.