↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

AxiaLIF system: minimally invasive device for presacral lumbar interbody spinal fusion

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
AxiaLIF system: minimally invasive device for presacral lumbar interbody spinal fusion
Published in
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2011
DOI 10.2147/mder.s23606
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven M Rapp, Larry E Miller, Jon E Block

Abstract

Lumbar fusion is commonly performed to alleviate chronic low back and leg pain secondary to disc degeneration, spondylolisthesis with or without concomitant lumbar spinal stenosis, or chronic lumbar instability. However, the risk of iatrogenic injury during traditional anterior, posterior, and transforaminal open fusion surgery is significant. The axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) system is a minimally invasive fusion device that accesses the lumbar (L4-S1) intervertebral disc spaces via a reproducible presacral approach that avoids critical neurovascular and musculoligamentous structures. Since the AxiaLIF system received marketing clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration in 2004, clinical studies of this device have reported high fusion rates without implant subsidence, significant improvements in pain and function, and low complication rates. This paper describes the design and approach of this lumbar fusion system, details the indications for use, and summarizes the clinical experience with the AxiaLIF system to date.

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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 21%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 21%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 July 2018.
All research outputs
#7,236,093
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#89
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,926
of 130,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 130,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them