| Title |
Lumbar total disc arthroplasty: outdated surgery or here to stay procedure? A systematic review of current literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10195-017-0462-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matteo Formica, Stefano Divano, Luca Cavagnaro, Marco Basso, Andrea Zanirato, Carlo Formica, Lamberto Felli |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to summarize the available evidence about total lumbar disc replacement (TDR), focusing our attention on four main topics: clinical and functional outcomes, comparison with fusion surgery results, rate of complications and influence on sagittal balance. We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Medscape, Google Scholar and Cochrane library databases in order to answer our four main research questions. Effective data were extracted after the assessment of methodological quality of the trials. Fifty-nine pertinent papers were included. Clinical and functional scores show statistically significant improvements, and they last at all time points compared to baseline. The majority of the articles show there is no significant difference between TDR groups and fusion groups. The literature shows similar rates of complications between the two surgical procedures. TDR showed significant safety and efficacy, comparable to lumbar fusion. The major advantages of a lumbar TDR over fusion include maintenance of segmental motion and the restoration of the disc height, allowing patients to find their own spinal balance. Disc arthroplasty could be a reliable option in the treatment of degenerative disc disease in years to come. II. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 106 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 43% |
| Engineering | 11 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 32 | 30% |
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 27 August 2017.
All research outputs
#19,244,099
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#159
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,186
of 315,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 315,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.