| Title |
Combined epidural morphine and bupivacaine in the treatment of lumbosacral radicular neuropathic pain: a noncontrolled prospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s113996 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Simone Vigneri, Gianfranco Sindaco, Marco La Grua, Matteo Zanella, Laura Ravaioli, Valentina Paci, Gilberto Pari |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effectiveness of epidural morphine and bupivacaine in patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular neuropathic pain after the cessation of treatment. Twenty-two patients with chronic lumbosacral pain with neuropathic features were enrolled. An indwelling catheter was placed into the epidural space, and each patient received an epidural injection of morphine chlorhydrate and bupivacaine up to three times a day. The medication was administered for 4 weeks. The pain intensity score on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS), the total pain rating index rank (PRIr-T), and its coefficients were evaluated before treatment and 1 month after catheter removal. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. NRS and PRIr-T were significantly reduced at follow-up (P=0.001 and P=0.03, respectively), whereas the parallel evolution of the two scores (r=0.75 and P<0.001, respectively) confirmed significant pain relief lasting up to 1 month after treatment cessation. None of the four pain rating coefficients was significantly modified compared to the others in either responders or nonresponders. Successful clinical outcome (pain reduction >30% in NRS) was reached and maintained in half of the patients at follow-up. Combined epidural morphine and bupivacaine seems to be effective in the treatment of neuropathic pain. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 9% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
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 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,123
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,232
of 318,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#32
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 318,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.