↓ Skip to main content

A practical guide for planning pelvic bone percutaneous interventions (biopsy, tumour ablation and cementoplasty)

Overview of attention for article published in Insights into Imaging, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
A practical guide for planning pelvic bone percutaneous interventions (biopsy, tumour ablation and cementoplasty)
Published in
Insights into Imaging, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13244-018-0600-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Oñate Miranda, Thomas P. Moser

Abstract

Percutaneous approaches for pelvic bone procedures (bone biopsies, tumour ablation and cementoplasty) are multiple and less well systematised than for the spine or extremities. Among the different imaging techniques that can be used for guidance, computed tomography (CT) scan is the modality of choice because of the complex pelvic anatomy. In specific cases, such as cementoplasty where real-time evaluation is a determinant, a combination of CT and fluoroscopy is highly recommended. The objective of this article is to propose a systematic approach for image-guided pelvic bone procedures, as well as to provide some technical tips. We illustrate the article with multiple examples, and diagrams of the approaches and important structures to avoid to perform these procedures safely. • Pelvic bone procedures are safe to perform if anatomical landmarks are recognised. • The safest approach varies depending on the pelvic level. • CT is the modality of choice for guiding pelvic percutaneous procedures. • Fluoroscopy is recommended when real-time monitoring is mandatory. • MRI can also be used for guiding pelvic percutaneous procedures.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 68%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 9 29%
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 21 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,971,225
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#607
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,357
of 336,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 336,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.