| Title |
Thoracic epidural catheter for postoperative pain control following an ineffective transversus abdominis plane block using liposome bupivacaine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s111589 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian D Terrien, David Espinoza, Charles C Stehman, Gabriel A Rodriguez, Nicholas C Connolly |
| Abstract |
A 24-year-old female with a history of ulcerative colitis underwent colectomy. The patient received an ineffective transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block with liposome bupivacaine (Exparel) intraoperatively and was started on a hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia 5 hours after the TAP block, which did not relieve her pain. A continuous thoracic epidural (CTE) was then placed after blood levels of bupivacaine were drawn, and the patient immediately experienced significant pain relief. The combined use of liposome bupivacaine and bupivacaine CTE infusion in the postoperative management of this patient demonstrated no safety concerns, provided excellent analgesia and plasma concentrations of bupivacaine remained far below toxic levels. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
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 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,575
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,168
of 421,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#42
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 421,655 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 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.