↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Bilateral posterior cervical cages provide biomechanical stability: assessment of stand-alone and supplemental fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, July 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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Bilateral posterior cervical cages provide biomechanical stability: assessment of stand-alone and supplemental fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/mder.s109588
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonard I Voronov, Krzysztof B Siemionow, Robert M Havey, Gerard Carandang, Frank M Phillips, Avinash G Patwardhan

Abstract

Supplemental posterior instrumentation has been widely used to enhance stability and improve fusion rates in higher risk patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). These typically involve posterior lateral mass or pedicle screw fixation with significant inherent risks and morbidities. More recently, cervical cages placed bilaterally between the facet joints (posterior cervical cages) have been used as a less disruptive alternative for posterior fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the stability achieved by both posterior cages and ACDF at a single motion segment and determine the stability achieved with posterior cervical cages used as an adjunct to single- and multilevel ACDF. Seven cadaveric cervical spine (C2-T1) specimens were tested in the following sequence: intact, C5-C6 bilateral posterior cages, C6-C7 plated ACDF with and without posterior cages, and C3-C5 plated ACDF with and without posterior cages. Range of motion in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation was measured for each condition under moment loading up to ±1.5 Nm. All fusion constructs significantly reduced the range of motion compared to intact in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation (P<0.05). Similar stability was achieved with bilateral posterior cages and plated ACDF at a single level. Posterior cages, when placed as an adjunct to ACDF, further reduced range of motion in both single- and multilevel constructs (P<0.05). The biomechanical effectiveness of bilateral posterior cages in limiting cervical segmental motion is comparable to single-level plated ACDF. Furthermore, supplementation of single- and multilevel ACDF with posterior cervical cages provided a significant increase in stability and therefore may be a potential, minimally disruptive option for supplemental fixation for improving ACDF fusion rates.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 24%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 32%
Engineering 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 14 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,638,157
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#51
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,069
of 367,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 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 well, scoring higher than 83% 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 367,395 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.