↓ Skip to main content

Liposomal Bupivacaine During Robotic Colpopexy and Posterior Repair

Overview of attention for article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Liposomal Bupivacaine During Robotic Colpopexy and Posterior Repair
Published in
Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2018
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000002375
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Yeung, Catrina C. Crisp, Donna Mazloomdoost, Steven D. Kleeman, Rachel N. Pauls

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of liposomal bupivacaine on postoperative pain among patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy with posterior repair. This was a randomized, patient-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of women undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy with posterior repair. Liposomal bupivacaine or normal saline placebo was injected into laparoscopic and vaginal incisions at completion of surgery. Perioperative care was standardized. Visual analog scales were collected at 4, 18, and 24 hours postoperatively in hospital. Starting on postoperative day 1, participants completed twice-daily pain scales and a pain medication diary up until the evening of postoperative day 3. The primary outcome was a 20-mm change in the visual analog scale 18 hours postoperatively. Secondary measures included additional pain scores, satisfaction, and narcotic use. Sample size calculation revealed that 32 patients per arm were required to detect the 20-mm difference with 90% power and an α of 0.05. To allocate for dropout, a goal of 70 was set. Between March 2015 and April 2016, 100 women were screened and 70 women were enrolled: 35 women were randomized to liposomal bupivacaine and 35 to placebo, of whom 64 (91%) were included in the final analysis: 33 liposomal bupivacaine and 31 placebo. No difference in demographics, surgical data, or satisfaction between groups was noted. Median VAS at 18 hours after surgery was not statistically different in those who received liposomal bupivacaine compared with normal saline (15 mm compared with 20 mm; P=.52). Other pain scales and total morphine equivalents were also similar (P=.90). In this study of robotic sacrocolpopexy with posterior repair, there were no differences in pain scores or narcotic use between liposomal bupivacaine and placebo injected into laparoscopic and vaginal incisions. Given its lack of clinical benefit, routine use of liposomal bupivacaine is not supported for this surgical intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02449915.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#6,933
of 8,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,247
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#80
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 449,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.