↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Do liposomal bupivacaine infiltration and interscalene nerve block provide similar pain relief after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Do liposomal bupivacaine infiltration and interscalene nerve block provide similar pain relief after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, September 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s177716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Han Sun, Shuxiang Li, Kun Wang, Jian Zhou, Guofeng Wu, Sheng Fang, Xiaoliang Sun

Abstract

Controversy still exists regarding the efficiency and safety of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) vs interscalene nerve block (INB) for pain management after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The aim of the present meta-analysis was to perform a relatively credible and overall assessment to compare the efficiency and safety of LB-based infiltration vs INB for pain management after TSA. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE were systematically searched. Only studies published up to March 2018 comparing LB vs INB for pain control after TSA were included. The primary outcome extracted from the studies was postoperative pain score at different periods. The secondary outcomes included total opioid consumption, length of hospital stay, and complications. Seven studies with 707 patients were included in this study. No statistically significant difference was observed between the LB and INB groups in pain scores at 8 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, postoperative day (POD) 1, and POD 2. The two groups also showed comparable total opioid consumption at POD 0, POD 1, POD 2, and length of hospital stay. The LB group had a significantly higher pain score at 4 hours (standard mean difference =0.65, 95% CI=0.07 to 1.24, P=0.03) but a lower occurrence rate of complications than did the INB group (OR =0.51, 95% CI=0.28 to 0.91, P=0.02). This meta-analysis revealed that INB provides excellent analgesic effects within 4 hours after TSA, while patients treated with LB infiltration experienced significantly less occurrence rate of complications after TSA. In general, both approaches provide similar overall pain relief and have similar opioid consumption after TSA, with no significant difference in the length of hospital stay. Nevertheless, more high-quality randomized controlled trails with long-term follow-up are still required to make the final conclusion.

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 42%
Psychology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 17 35%
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 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,062,623
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#710
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,228
of 335,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#30
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 335,781 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 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 59% of its contemporaries.