| Title |
The activL® Artificial Disc: a next-generation motion-preserving implant for chronic lumbar discogenic pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s102949 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James J Yue, Rolando Garcia, Larry E Miller |
| Abstract |
Degeneration of the lumbar intervertebral discs is a leading cause of chronic low back pain in adults. Treatment options for patients with chronic lumbar discogenic pain unresponsive to conservative management include total disc replacement (TDR) or lumbar fusion. Until recently, only two lumbar TDRs had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration - the Charité Artificial Disc in 2004 and the ProDisc-L Total Disc Replacement in 2006. In June 2015, a next-generation lumbar TDR received Food and Drug Administration approval - the activL(®) Artificial Disc (Aesculap Implant Systems). Compared to previous-generation lumbar TDRs, the activL(®) Artificial Disc incorporates specific design enhancements that result in a more precise anatomical match and allow a range of motion that better mimics the healthy spine. The results of mechanical and clinical studies demonstrate that the activL(®) Artificial Disc results in improved mechanical and clinical outcomes versus earlier-generation artificial discs and compares favorably to lumbar fusion. The purpose of this report is to describe the activL(®) Artificial Disc including implant characteristics, intended use, surgical technique, postoperative care, mechanical testing, and clinical experience to date. |
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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 25 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 22% |
| Engineering | 17 | 22% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 28 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,960,151
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#28
of 313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,183
of 312,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 312,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.