↓ Skip to main content

Choice of loco-regional anesthetic technique affects operating room efficiency for carpal tunnel release

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Choice of loco-regional anesthetic technique affects operating room efficiency for carpal tunnel release
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00540-013-1578-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edward R. Mariano, Megan K. Lehr, Vanessa J. Loland, Michael L. Bishop

Abstract

Intravenous regional anesthesia (Bier block) is indicated for minor procedures such as carpal tunnel release but must be performed in the operating room. We hypothesize that preoperative peripheral nerve blocks decrease anesthesia-controlled time compared to Bier block for carpal tunnel release. With IRB approval, we reviewed surgical case data from a tertiary care university hospital outpatient surgery center for 1 year. Unilateral carpal tunnel release cases were grouped by anesthetic technique: (1) preoperative nerve blocks, or (2) Bier block. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (minutes). Secondary outcomes included surgical time and time for nerve block performance in minutes, when applicable. Eighty-nine cases met criteria for analysis (40 nerve block and 49 Bier block). Anesthesia-controlled time [median (10th-90th percentiles)] was shorter for the nerve block group compared to Bier block [11 (6-18) vs. 13 (9-20) min, respectively; p = 0.02). Surgical time was also shorter for the nerve block group vs. the Bier block group [13 (8-21) and 17 (10-29) min, respectively; p < 0.01), but nerve blocks took 10 (5-28) min to perform. Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks performed preoperatively reduce anesthesia-controlled time compared to Bier block and may be a useful anesthetic modality in some practice environments.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 14%
Other 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 68%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 14%
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 21 March 2013.
All research outputs
#19,409,375
of 23,878,777 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#618
of 852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,412
of 197,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,878,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 852 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 197,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.