↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis: systematic review and exploratory patient level analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 227)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Treatment of stable slipped capital femoral epiphysis: systematic review and exploratory patient level analysis
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10195-017-0469-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Naseem, S. Chatterji, K. Tsang, M. Hakimi, A. Chytas, S. Alshryda

Abstract

Several aspects of slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) treatment remain controversial. Loder's work has been instrumental in changing our understanding and approach to the management of the condition when he introduced the concept of "slip instability" and showed that avascular necrosis (AVN) developed in 47% of unstable slips but none of the stable slips. As the two types of SCFE behave differently in terms of presentation, progress and complications, we approached them as two different conditions to highlight these differences. This paper focuses on treatments of stable SCFE. An extensive literature search was carried out from multiple databases. One thousand six hundred and twenty-three citations were screened. Three hundred and sixteen full publications were obtained for further scrutiny. Fifty-eight studies (2262 hips) were included in the review. These studies evaluated 6 interventions. AVN was chosen as a surrogate for bad outcome. Secondary outcomes were chondrolysis (CL), femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI), osteoarthritis (OA) and patients' reported outcomes. The latter were pooled when they met our predefined criteria. The type of surgical intervention was an important risk factor. Pinning in situ (PIS) was associated with the lowest AVN rate (1.4%). Moreover, the CL, FAI and OA rates were relatively low in patients who underwent PIS. These were not translated into high patient satisfaction rates among these patients, with only 47% reporting an "excellent" outcome. In contrast, 87% of patients who underwent Ganz surgical dislocation reported an "excellent" outcome. The Ganz surgical dislocation was associated with an AVN rate of 3.3%; double that observed in pinning in situ. Pinning in situ is the best treatment for mild and moderate stable slip. Ganz surgical dislocation gives higher patient satisfaction for severe stable slip but the risk of AVN is doubled compared with pinning in situ. Devices that allow continued growth may be better than standard screws. Level III.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 52%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,144,434
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#20
of 227 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,633
of 326,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 227 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 326,751 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.