| Title |
Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Surgery: Quality Improvement Imperatives and Opportunities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Otorhinolaryngology Reports, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40136-013-0036-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael J. Brenner, Julie L. Goldman |
| Abstract |
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is more common in surgical candidates than in the general population and may increase susceptibility to perioperative complications that range from transient desaturation to catastrophic injuries. Understanding the potential impact of OSA on patients' surgical risk profile is of particular interest to otolaryngologists, who routinely perform airway procedures-including surgical procedures for treatment of OSA. Whereas the effects of OSA on long-term health outcomes are well documented, the relationship between OSA and surgical risk is not collinear, and clear consensus on the nature of the association is lacking. Better guidelines for optimization of pain control, perioperative monitoring, and surgical decision making are potential areas for quality improvement efforts. Many interventions have been suggested to mitigate the risk of adverse events in surgical patients with OSA, but wide variations in clinical practice remain. We review the current literature, emphasizing recent progress in understanding the complex pathophysiologic interactions noted in OSA patients undergoing surgery and outlining potential strategies to decrease perioperative risks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 43% |
| Psychology | 2 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
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 12 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,723,043
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Current Otorhinolaryngology Reports
#41
of 93 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,313
of 306,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Otorhinolaryngology Reports
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 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 93 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 306,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.