| Title |
Ultrasound-guided bilateral superficial cervical plexus block is more effective than landmark technique for reducing pain from thyroidectomy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s138222 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tjokorda Gde Agung Senapathi, I Made Gede Widnyana, I Gusti Ngurah Mahaalit Aribawa, Made Wiryana, I Ketut Sinardja, I Ketut Wibawa Nada, AA Gde Putra Semara Jaya, I Gede Koko Swadharma Putra |
| Abstract |
Thyroidectomy causes postoperative pain and patient discomfort. Bilateral superficial cervical plexus block is a regional anesthesia technique that can provide analgesia during and after surgery. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of ultrasound (US)-guided versus landmark (LM) technique for bilateral superficial cervical plexus block in thyroidectomy. Thirty-six patients undergoing thyroidectomy were divided into two groups randomly (n=18); either US-guided (US group) or LM technique (LM group) for bilateral superficial cervical plexus block. Patient-controlled analgesia was used to control postoperative pain. Intraoperative opioid rescue, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score and opioid consumption were measured. The number of patients who required intraoperative opioid rescue was significantly lower in the US group (p≤0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative VAS score at 3 hours (p>0.05), but postoperative VAS score at 6 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the US group (p≤0.05). Twenty-four hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the US group (p≤0.05). Ultrasound-guided bilateral superficial cervical plexus block is more effective in reducing pain both intra- and postoperatively compared with landmark technique in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 17% |
| Russia | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,419,843
of 25,365,817 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#631
of 1,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,022
of 320,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#27
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,365,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 320,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 54% of its contemporaries.