↓ Skip to main content

Postoperative apnea, respiratory strategies, and pathogenesis mechanisms: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Postoperative apnea, respiratory strategies, and pathogenesis mechanisms: a review
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, November 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00540-012-1517-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan D. Kaye, McKenzie Mayo Hollon, Nalini Vadivelu, Gopal Kodumudi, Rachel J. Kaye, Franklin Rivera Bueno, Amir R. Baluch

Abstract

Recovery from anesthesia is ideally routine and uneventful. After extubation, the recovering postoperative patient ought to breathe without supportive care or additional oxygenation. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that postoperative pulmonary complications are clinically relevant in terms of mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Compromised postoperative ventilation can be described as the condition in which the postoperative patient does not have satisfactory spontaneous ventilation support and adequate oxygenation. Causes of impaired ventilation, oxygenation, and airway maintenance can be mechanical, hemodynamic, and pharmacologic. This review describes prevalence and differential diagnosis, including co-morbidities of postoperative apnea. The physiological mechanisms of breathing and prolonged postoperative apnea are also reviewed; these mechanisms include influences from the brainstem, the cerebral cortex, and chemoreceptors in the carotid and aortic body. Causes of prolonged postoperative apnea and management are also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 4 22%
Unknown 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 17%
Psychology 1 6%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 28%
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 03 May 2014.
All research outputs
#17,671,894
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#538
of 803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,399
of 275,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 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 803 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 275,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 57% of its contemporaries.