↓ Skip to main content

Arthrodesis of proximal inter-phalangeal joint for hammertoe: intramedullary device options

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Arthrodesis of proximal inter-phalangeal joint for hammertoe: intramedullary device options
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10195-015-0360-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Guelfi, Andrea Pantalone, Janos Cambiaso Daniel, Daniele Vanni, Marco G. B. Guelfi, Vincenzo Salini

Abstract

Proximal inter-phalangeal (PIP) joint arthrodesis today represents the standard treatment for structured hammertoes; however, recently, a lot of new intramedullary devices for the fixation of this arthrodesis have been introduced. The purpose of this work is to look at the currently available devices and to perform a review of the present literature. A literature search of PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar databases, considering works published up until September 2014 and using the keywords: hammertoe, arthrodesis, PIP joint, fusion, intramedullary devices, and K-wire, was performed. The published papers were included in the present study only if they met the following inclusion criteria: English articles, arthrodesis of PIP joints for hammertoes with new generation intramedullary devices, series with n > 10. Studies using absorbable pins or screws that are considered as another kind of fixation that involved more than one articulation, as well as comments, letters to the editor, or newsletters were excluded. Nine publications were included. Of the patients' reports, 93-100 % were good or excellent concerning satisfaction. Radiological arthrodesis was achieved in 60.5-100 % of cases. Three of the publications compared the new devices with the K-wire. Of these three articles, two employed the traditional technique and one the buried technique. The AOFAS score, evaluated in three publications, showed a delta of 19, 45 and 58 points. Major complications, which required a secondary surgical revision, were between 0 and 8.6 %. The complications of the K-wire and the new devices were similar; also the reoperation rate was close to equal (maximal difference 2 %). On the other hand, these kinds of devices definitely have a higher price, compared to the K-wire. The use of these new devices provides good results; however, their high price is currently a problem. For this reason, cost-benefit studies seem to be necessary to justify their use as standard treatment. Level III systematic review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 6 16%
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 53%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Materials Science 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,240,730
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#94
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,087
of 265,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 265,223 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 56% 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 3 of them.