| Title |
The challenge of perioperative pain management in opioid-tolerant patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s141332 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Flaminia Coluzzi, Francesca Bifulco, Arturo Cuomo, Mario Dauri, Claudio Leonardi, Rita Maria Melotti, Silvia Natoli, Patrizia Romualdi, Gennaro Savoia, Antonio Corcione |
| Abstract |
The increasing number of opioid users among chronic pain patients, and opioid abusers among the general population, makes perioperative pain management challenging for health care professionals. Anesthesiologists, surgeons, and nurses should be familiar with some pharmacological phenomena which are typical of opioid users and abusers, such as tolerance, physical dependence, hyperalgesia, and addiction. Inadequate pain management is very common in these patients, due to common prejudices and fears. The target of preoperative evaluation is to identify comorbidities and risk factors and recognize signs and symptoms of opioid abuse and opioid withdrawal. Clinicians are encouraged to plan perioperative pain medications and to refer these patients to psychiatrists and addiction specialists for their evaluation. The aim of this review was to give practical suggestions for perioperative management of surgical opioid-tolerant patients, together with schemes of opioid conversion for chronic pain patients assuming oral or transdermal opioids, and patients under maintenance programs with methadone, buprenorphine, or naltrexone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 11 | 41% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 170 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 12% |
| Researcher | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 38 | 22% |
| Unknown | 42 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 47 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 29 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,057,813
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#89
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,754
of 324,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 324,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.