↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of braces designed using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and finite element simulation compared to CAD/CAM only for the conservative treatment of adolescent idiopathic…

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Effectiveness of braces designed using computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and finite element simulation compared to CAD/CAM only for the conservative treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Published in
European Spine Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4434-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Cobetto, C. E. Aubin, S. Parent, J. Clin, S. Barchi, I. Turgeon, Hubert Labelle

Abstract

Clinical assessment of immediate in-brace effect of braces designed using CAD/CAM and FEM vs. only CAD/CAM for conservative treatment of AIS, using a randomized blinded and controlled study design. Forty AIS patients were prospectively recruited and randomized into two groups. For 19 patients (control group), the brace was designed using a scan of patient's torso and a conventional CAD/CAM approach (CtrlBrace). For the 21 other patients (test group), the brace was additionally designed using finite element modeling (FEM) and 3D reconstructions of spine, rib cage and pelvis (NewBrace). The NewBrace design was simulated and iteratively optimized to maximize the correction and minimize the contact surface and material. Both groups had comparable age, sex, weight, height, curve type and severity. Scoliosis Research Society standardized criteria for bracing were followed. Average Cobb angle prior to bracing was 27° and 28° for main thoracic (MT) and lumbar (L) curves, respectively, for the control group, while it was 33° and 28° for the test group. CtrlBraces reduced MT and L curves by 8° (29 %) and 10° (40 %), respectively, compared to 14° (43 %) and 13° (46 %) for NewBraces, which were simulated with a difference inferior to 5°. NewBraces were 50 % thinner and had 20 % less covering surface than CtrlBraces. Braces designed with CAD/CAM and 3D FEM simulation were more efficient and lighter than standard CAD/CAM TLSO's at first immediate in-brace evaluation. These results suggest that long-term effect of bracing in AIS may be improved using this new platform for brace fabrication. NCT02285621.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Other 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Unspecified 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Materials Science 2 5%
Other 7 16%

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 05 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,160,780
of 12,221,475 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#758
of 3,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,880
of 344,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#25
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,221,475 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,031 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 344,673 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.