↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Awake craniotomy anesthetic management using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remifentanil

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Awake craniotomy anesthetic management using dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remifentanil
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s124736
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Prontera, Stefano Baroni, Andrea Marudi, Franco Valzania, Alberto Feletti, Francesca Benuzzi, Elisabetta Bertellini, Giacomo Pavesi

Abstract

Awake craniotomy allows continuous monitoring of patients' neurological functions during open surgery. Anesthesiologists have to sedate patients in a way so that they are compliant throughout the whole surgical procedure, nevertheless maintaining adequate analgesia and anxiolysis. Currently, the use of α2-receptor agonist dexmedetomidine as the primary hypnotic-sedative medication is increasing. Nine patients undergoing awake craniotomy were treated with refined monitored anesthesia care (MAC) protocol consisting of a combination of local anesthesia without scalp block, low-dose infusion of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and remifentanil, without the need of airways management. The anesthetic protocol applied in our study has the advantage of decreasing the dose of each drug and thus reducing the occurrence of side effects. All patients had smooth and rapid awakenings. The brain remained relaxed during the entire procedure. In our experience, this protocol is safe and effective during awake brain surgery. Nevertheless, prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm the optimal anesthetic technique to be used.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 41%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 39%

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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#16,304,032
of 20,274,452 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,121
of 1,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,968
of 280,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#31
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,274,452 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 1,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 280,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.