↓ Skip to main content

Continuous paravertebral block for postoperative pain compared to general anaesthesia and wound infiltration for major oncological breast surgery

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Continuous paravertebral block for postoperative pain compared to general anaesthesia and wound infiltration for major oncological breast surgery
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-3-517
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther A C Bouman, Maurice Theunissen, Alfons GH Kessels, Kristien BMI Keymeulen, Elbert AJ Joosten, Marco AE Marcus, Wolfgang F Buhre, Hans-Fritz Gramke

Abstract

We hypothesized that improved acute postoperative pain relief will be achieved using general anaesthesia (GA) either in combination with continuous thoracic paravertebral block (GA-cPVB) or single shot (GA-sPVB) as compared to GA supplemented by local wound infiltration (GA-LWI) after unilateral major breast cancer surgery. A randomised controlled trial was conducted in 46 adult women in a day-care or short-stay hospital setting after major breast cancer surgery. Pain-intensity was measured using an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) until postoperative day 2. GA-sPVB was stopped due to slow inclusion. No significant difference in VAS score was noted between GA-LWI (VAS median 0.5 (interquartile range 0.18-2.00)) and GA-cPVB, (VAS 0.3 (0.00-1.55, p = 0.195)) 24 hours after surgery or at any point postoperatively until postoperative day 2. We conclude that both GA-LWI and GA-cPVB anaesthetic techniques are equally effective in treatment of acute postoperative pain after major oncological breast surgery. As GA-LWI is easily to perform with fewer complications and it is more cost-effective it should be preferred over GA-cPVB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 13%
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 03 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,201,538
of 22,765,347 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#769
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,879
of 238,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#48
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,765,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 238,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.