↓ Skip to main content

Two types of laminolysis in adolescent athletes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Two types of laminolysis in adolescent athletes
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10195-012-0206-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryo Miyagi, Koichi Sairyo, Toshinori Sakai, Hiroshi Yoshioka, Natsuo Yasui, Akira Dezawa

Abstract

Bony defects in the spine are divided into three main types: spondylolysis, pediculolysis, and laminolysis. Lumbar spondylolysis is a well-known stress fracture that occurs frequently in adolescent athletes. Pediculolysis means stress fracture of the pedicle, which sometimes occurs subsequent to unilateral spondylolysis. Laminolysis is a rarely reported stress fracture similar to spondylolysis and pediculolysis that sometimes causes low back pain (LBP). However, its pathomechanism has not been elucidated. Recently, we encountered four adolescent athletes with symptomatic laminolysis. Mean age was 15.8 (range 15-17) years. All subjects reported severe LBP exacerbated by extension of the lumbar spine, and radiology revealed two types of laminolysis: hemilaminar type and intralaminar type. To elucidate the mechanisms of each type, we reviewed a biomechanical study, and found that the hemilaminar type was thought to be subsequent to contralateral spondylolysis, while the intralaminar type might be a result of a stress fracture due to repetitive extension loading.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Sports and Recreations 7 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 February 2023.
All research outputs
#7,461,049
of 24,221,802 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#60
of 223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,813
of 166,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,221,802 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 166,599 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.