↓ Skip to main content

Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 6: Pedicle-Based Non-fusion Stabilization Devices: A Critical Review and Appraisal of Current Evidence.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Pedicle-Based Non-fusion Stabilization Devices: A Critical Review and Appraisal of Current Evidence.
Chapter number 6
Book title
Advances and Technical Standards in Neurosurgery
Published in
Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-01830-0_6
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-901829-4, 978-3-31-901830-0
Authors

Jochen Obernauer, Pujan Kavakebi, Sebastian Quirbach, Claudius Thomé, Obernauer J, Kavakebi P, Quirbach S, Thomé C

Abstract

Over the last decades, spinal fusion has become one of the most important principles in surgical treatment of spinal pathologies. Despite the undoubted benefits of fusion surgery, there are several drawbacks associated with this technique, including adjacent segment degeneration and pseudoarthrosis. Based on biomechanical data, dynamic stabilization of the spine is intended to ameliorate adjacent level degeneration by stabilizing vertebral motion in defined planes and mimicking natural spine movements.In this paper, we review the literature and discuss past and present pedicle-based non-fusion dynamic stabilization devices. Although there is a paucity of high-quality prospective trials, studies have indicated both promising and disappointing results. In comparison to 360° fusion surgery, the perioperative risk seems to be lower. Other complications like screw loosening, however, have been reported with various systems, while a reduction of adjacent segment disease has not yet been demonstrated. The necessary degree of restabilization to achieve pain-free motion seems to vary greatly between patients and current systems are far from perfection. If these problems can be solved, dynamic stabilization may nevertheless be an important option of spinal surgery in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Neuroscience 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Unknown 1 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,184,832
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery
#6
of 19 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,600
of 305,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.8. This one scored the same or higher as 13 of them.
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 305,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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