| Title |
True anteroposterior view pedicle screw insertion technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s99362 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jia-yue Bai, Wei Zhang, Ji-long An, Ya-peng Sun, Wen-yuan Ding, Yong Shen |
| Abstract |
The wide use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) surgery in the treatment of degenerative disc disease of lumbar spine in spinal surgery highlights the gradual decrease in the use of traditional pedicle screw insertion technology. This study aims to analyze the accuracy of the true anteroposterior view pedicle screw insertion technique in MIS-TLIF surgery, compare it with conventional pedicle screw insertion technology, and discuss its clinical application value. Fifty-two patients undergoing true anteroposterior view (group A) and 87 patients undergoing conventional pedicle screw insertion (group B) were diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation or lumbar spinal stenosis. Time for screw placement, intraoperative irradiation exposure, accuracy rate of pedicle screw insertion, and incidence of neurovascular injury were compared between the two groups. The time for screw placement and intraoperative irradiation exposure was significantly less in group A. Penetration rates of the paries lateralis of vertebral pedicle, medial wall of vertebral pedicle, and anterior vertebral wall were 1.44%, 0%, and 2.40%, respectively, all of which were significantly lower than that in group B. No additional serious complications caused by the placement of screw were observed during the follow-up period in patients in group A, but two patients with medial penetration underwent revision for unbearable radicular pain. The application of true anteroposterior view pedicle screw insertion technique in MIS-TLIF surgery shortens time for screw placement and reduces the intraoperative irradiation exposure along with a higher accuracy rate of screw placement, which makes it a safe, accurate, and efficient technique. |
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) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Poland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 58% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#667
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,554
of 353,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#20
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 353,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 56% of its contemporaries.