Title |
Continuous Adductor Canal Blocks Are Superior to Continuous Femoral Nerve Blocks in Promoting Early Ambulation After TKA
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11999-013-3197-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Seshadri C. Mudumbai, T. Edward Kim, Steven K. Howard, J. Justin Workman, Nicholas Giori, Steven Woolson, Toni Ganaway, Robert King, Edward R. Mariano |
Abstract |
Femoral continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) provide effective analgesia after TKA but have been associated with quadriceps weakness and delayed ambulation. A promising alternative is adductor canal CPNB that delivers a primarily sensory blockade; however, the differential effects of these two techniques on functional outcomes after TKA are not well established. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 9 | 32% |
Canada | 2 | 7% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
Brazil | 2 | 7% |
Belgium | 1 | 4% |
Maldives | 1 | 4% |
South Africa | 1 | 4% |
Turkey | 1 | 4% |
Germany | 1 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 16 | 57% |
Scientists | 6 | 21% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 11% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Iceland | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 128 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 18 | 14% |
Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 9% |
Other | 11 | 8% |
Other | 35 | 27% |
Unknown | 24 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 66% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
Engineering | 2 | 2% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
Computer Science | 1 | <1% |
Other | 5 | 4% |
Unknown | 27 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 10 February 2021.
All research outputs
#2,174,874
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#307
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,206
of 210,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4
of 120 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 210,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 120 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.