↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Failed back surgery syndrome: review and new hypotheses

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
15 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Failed back surgery syndrome: review and new hypotheses
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s96754
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Bordoni, Fabiola Marelli

Abstract

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a term used to define an unsatisfactory outcome of a patient who underwent spinal surgery, irrespective of type or intervention area, with persistent pain in the lumbosacral region with or without it radiating to the leg. The possible reasons and risk factors that would lead to FBSS can be found in distinct phases: in problems already present in the patient before a surgical approach, such as spinal instability, during surgery (for example, from a mistake by the surgeon), or in the postintervention phase in relation to infections or biomechanical alterations. This article reviews the current literature on FBSS and tries to give a new hypothesis to understand the reasons for this clinical problem. The dysfunction of the diaphragm muscle is a component that is not taken into account when trying to understand the reasons for this syndrome, as there is no existing literature on the subject. The diaphragm is involved in chronic lower back and sacroiliac pain and plays an important role in the management of pain perception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Chemistry 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 18 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,444,878
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#283
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,871
of 400,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 400,858 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.