| Title |
Comparison of propofol–hydromorphone and propofol–dexmedetomidine in patients with intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s99262 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei Peng, Tiejun Zhang, Yanlin Wang |
| Abstract |
To compare the sedation and analgesic effects between propofol-hydromorphone and propofol-dexmedetomidine in patients with postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery. Forty-two patients undertaking maxillofacial plastic surgery with intubation were randomly assigned into propofol plus hydromorphone (P-H) group or propofol plus dexmedetomidine (P-D) group, receiving intravenous infusion of P-H or P-D, respectively. Cerebral state index, Ramsay sedation score, arterial blood gas analysis, and physiology indices were recorded before admission (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours after admission (T5) to intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). Blood interleukin-6 was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. There was no significant difference in arterial blood gas analysis, oxygen saturation, mean arterial pressure, and respiratory rate between two groups at all time-points (P>0.05). The changes of heart rate (at T4, T5, and T6), cerebral state index (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5), and Ramsay score (at T3) in P-H group were significantly different from that in P-D group (P<0.05). The plasma interleukin-6 at T4 in P-H group was significantly lower than that in P-D group (P<0.05). The P-H approach takes advantages over P-D approach in relieving the pain and discomfort, reducing the overstimulation of sympathetic nerve and the stress level, and enhancing the tolerance of postoperative intubation after maxillofacial plastic surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 24% |
| Unknown | 8 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,684
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#33
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.