↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Landmark-based versus ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic postherniorrhaphy groin pain: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Landmark-based versus ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic postherniorrhaphy groin pain: a retrospective study
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s86777
Pubmed ID
Authors

Drew Trainor, Susan Moeschler, Matthew Pingree, Brian Hoelzer, Zhen Wang, William Mauck, Wenchun Qu

Abstract

Chronic postherniorrhaphy groin pain (CPGP) is a debilitating condition, which is often refractory to conservative medical management. To our knowledge, there have been no studies directly comparing landmarked-based and ultrasound-guided approaches in this population. To compare the effectiveness of landmark-based and ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in the treatment of CPGP. This is a retrospective chart review of patients who presented to our tertiary care pain medicine clinic with a diagnosis of CPGP. Inclusion criteria were the following: age >18 years, diagnosis of groin pain, and prior history of herniorrhaphy. Exclusion criteria included those who were seen for initial consultation but were lost to follow-up. Primary outcomes were 50% or greater reduction in pain on visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were 30% or greater reduction in VAS pain score, changes in VAS pain scores, and reported complications. A total of 36 patients were included in the study. Of them, 20 patients underwent the landmark-based and 16 underwent the ultrasound-guided techniques. There was no significant difference in baseline demographics. The average VAS score preinjection was 7.08 in the landmark-based and 7.0 in the ultrasound-guided groups (P=0.65). A total of 14 patients (70%) in the landmark-based and eleven patients (79%) in the ultrasound-guided groups experienced at least a 50% reduction in VAS scores. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=1.0), and no complications were noted. We also did not find a significant difference in terms of number of patients with 30% or greater reduction (P=0.71) and changes in VAS pain scores (P=0.64). No complications were reported in either group. In our study, there was no statistically significant difference between the landmark-based and ultrasound-guided groups in terms of a reduction in VAS pain scores, and no complications were noted in either group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Other 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 October 2020.
All research outputs
#17,778,101
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,327
of 1,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,053
of 274,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#25
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 274,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.