↓ Skip to main content

Prospective assessment of positioning-related pain in robotic urologic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Robotic Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Prospective assessment of positioning-related pain in robotic urologic surgery
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11701-017-0701-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin B. Ginsburg, Kelsey Pape, Chase Heilbronn, Michael Levin, Michael L. Cher

Abstract

This was a prospective study to assess positioning-related pain in 20 awake volunteers in the dorsal lithotomy (DL) and lateral decubitus (LD) positions. Each volunteer was put through the series of discrete, sequential steps used to achieve a final position; each step had two options. The Wong-Baker scale (WB) was used to rate pain for each option and the preferred option and ad lib comments were recorded. We found that awake volunteers could clearly and immediately distinguish differences in pain levels between position options. For the DL position, volunteers favored having the arms slightly flexed and pronated as opposed to being straight and supinated reflected by statistically less painful WB scores and option preference. Volunteers preferred having the neck flexed as opposed to being flat. For the LD position, volunteers reported statistically lower pain scores and preference for a foam roll for axilla support as opposed to a rolled blanket, the table flexed without the kidney rest as opposed to a raised kidney rest, and the over arm board as oppose to stacked blankets for contralateral arm support. Ad lib comments from the volunteers supported the above findings. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to demonstrate objective preferences for variations in surgical positioning using awake volunteers. This exercise with awake volunteers resulted in immediate changes in positioning for real robotic surgery patients in our practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 22%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 30%
Computer Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#7,722,978
of 23,482,849 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#200
of 702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,471
of 312,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Robotic Surgery
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,482,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 702 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 312,097 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.