↓ Skip to main content

A randomized comparison between interscalene and combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks for arthroscopic shoulder surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
A randomized comparison between interscalene and combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks for arthroscopic shoulder surgery
Published in
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12630-017-1048-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Aliste, Daniela Bravo, Roderick J. Finlayson, De Q. Tran

Abstract

This randomized trial aimed to evaluate combined infraclavicular-suprascapular blocks (ICB-SSBs) as a diaphragm-sparing alternative to interscalene blocks (ISBs) for arthroscopic shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that ICB-SSB would provide equivalent postoperative analgesia to ISB 30 min after surgery without the risk of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Following research ethics board approval and written informed consent, participants in the ISB group received an ultrasound-guided ISB with 20 mL of levobupivacaine 0.25% and epinephrine 5 µg·mL-1. In the ICB-SSB group, ultrasound-guided ICB (20 mL) and SSB (10 mL) were carried out using the same local anesthetic. Thirty minutes after the block was performed, a blinded investigator assessed the presence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. Subsequently, all patients underwent general anesthesia. Postoperatively, a blinded investigator recorded pain scores at rest at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 and 24 hr. Consumption of intra- and postoperative narcotics was also tabulated. Compared to its ICB-SSB counterpart, the ISB group displayed non-equivalent (i.e., lower) postoperative pain scores at 30 min (difference of the medians, -4; 99% confidence interval [CI], -6 to -3), required less cumulative morphine iv at 24 hr (difference of the means, -6.1 mg; 95% CI, -10.5 to -1.6), and resulted in a higher incidence of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (18/20 vs 0/20 patients, respectively; P < 0.001). Although postoperative pain scores at one, two, and three hours appeared lower in the ISB group, the upper bounds of the 99% CIs did not exceed the equivalence margin. Compared with ICB-SSB, ISB provided non-equivalent (i.e., lower) postoperative pain scores 30 min after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Thereafter, postoperative analgesia was comparable between the two groups. Further trials are required to compare ISB with ICB-SSB using a proximal (i.e., costoclavicular) technique for ICB. www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02993939. Registered 12 December 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 22%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 25 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 04 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,004,531
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#275
of 2,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,303
of 447,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#18
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 447,047 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.