↓ Skip to main content

Reconstruction of acetabulum in revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity: report of a difficult case requiring four revision arthroplasty

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Reconstruction of acetabulum in revision total hip arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity: report of a difficult case requiring four revision arthroplasty
Published in
SpringerPlus, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2247-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasuo Kokubo, Hisashi Oki, Naoto Takeura, Kohei Negoro, Kenichi Takeno, Tsuyoshi Miyazaki, Daisuke Sugita, Hideaki Nakajima

Abstract

Massive bone defects of the acetabulum with pelvic discontinuity are one of the major problems in revision total hip arthroplasty. Several techniques have been described for repair of acetabular defect; however, reconstruction of acetabulum with massive bone defect is still a major problem. We describe a patient who required four revision total hip arthroplasty during a 24-year period. The acetabulum with pelvic discontinuity was successfully reconstructed by stabilization of the posterior column with a plate commonly used for fracture treatment, and stabilization of the anterior column by reinforcement device commonly used for acetabular reconstruction. Fixation of both acetabular columns provided significant improvement of component stability. In the case of pelvic discontinuity with massive acetabular bone defect, reconstruction by stabilizing both acetabular columns using reconstruction plate and KT plate is one of the better surgical options.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Other 3 20%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 80%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,463,662
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,261
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,389
of 309,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#127
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 309,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.