↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of pain during endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of pain during endovenous laser ablation of the great saphenous vein with ultrasound-guided femoral nerve block
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s135308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdullah M Al Wahbi

Abstract

Endoluminal laser ablation is now considered the method of choice for treating greater saphenous vein insufficiency. General anesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks with sedation have the risk of post-procedural delay in discharge and prolonged immobilization with the risk of deep vein thrombosis. The main pain experienced by patients during the procedure is during the laser ablation and the multiple needle punctures given along and around the great saphenous vein. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of blocking the femoral nerve only under ultrasound-guidance without sedation, to reduce or prevent pain during injectable tumescent anesthesia in endovenous laser ablation of the greater saphenous vein. Sixty patients in two groups underwent endovenous laser ablation for the greater saphenous vein insufficiency at an outpatient clinic. All patients received tumescent anesthesia. However, one group received a femoral nerve block (FNB) under ultrasound guidance before the procedure. All patients were asked to record the pain or discomfort, using the visual analog score, from the start of the procedure until the end of the great saphenous vein laser ablation. The length of the great saphenous vein and duration of the procedure were also recorded. The results were analyzed using statistical methods. No complications from FNB were observed. The pain associated with application of tumescent anesthesia and laser ablation was more intense in the group without an FNB (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the length of the great saphenous vein or procedure duration. Ultrasound-guided FNB (without other peripheral nerve blocks) is a safe, adequate, and effective option to decrease and/or eliminate the intraoperative discomfort associated with tumescent anesthesia injections and laser ablation during endoluminal laser ablation of the greater saphenous vein.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,357,897
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#243
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,936
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. 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 327,503 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.