↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair under spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a randomized prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair under spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a randomized prospective study
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s117891
Pubmed ID
Authors

Turgut Donmez, Vuslat Muslu Erdem, Oguzhan Sunamak, Duygu Ayfer Erdem, Huseyin Imam Avaroglu

Abstract

Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is a well-known approach to inguinal hernia repair that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA). To date, no reports compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) with that of GA for laparoscopic hernia repairs. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of TEP inguinal hernia repair performed when the patient was treated under SA with that performed under GA. Between July 2015 and July 2016, 50 patients were prospectively randomized to either the GA TEP group (Group I) or the SA TEP group (Group II). Propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, sevoflurane, and tracheal intubation were used for GA. Hyperbaric bupivacaine (15 mg) and fentanyl (10 µg) were used for SA to achieve a sensorial level of T3. Intraoperative events related to SA, operative and anesthesia times, postoperative complications, and pain scores were recorded. Each patient was asked to evaluate the anesthetic technique by using a direct questionnaire filled in 3 months after the operation. All the procedures were completed by the allocated method of anesthesia as there were no conversions from SA to GA. Pain was significantly less for 1 h (P<0.0001) and 4 h (P=0.002) after the procedure for the SA and GA groups, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, hospital stay, recovery, or surgery time. Generally, patients were more satisfied with SA than GA (P<0.020). TEP inguinal hernia repair can be safely performed under SA, and SA was associated with less postoperative pain, better recovery, and better patient satisfaction than GA.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 26 39%
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 28 October 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,204
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#292,211
of 332,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#36
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 332,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.