| Title |
Facet-sparing lumbar decompression with a minimally invasive flexible MicroBlade Shaver® versus traditional decompression: quantitative radiographic assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s32536 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carl Lauryssen, Sigurd Berven, Ronnie Mimran, Christopher Summa, Michael Sheinberg, Larry E Miller, Jon E Block |
| Abstract |
Laminectomy/laminotomy and foraminotomy are well established surgical techniques for treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis. However, these procedures have significant limitations, including limited access to lateral and foraminal compression and postoperative instability. The purpose of this cadaver study was to compare bone, ligament, and soft tissue morphology following lumbar decompression using a minimally invasive MicroBlade Shaver® instrument versus hemilaminotomy with foraminotomy (HL). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 52% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 24% |
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 21 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,255
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,373
of 176,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 176,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.