↓ Skip to main content

Pain after laparoscopy

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
7 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Pain after laparoscopy
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s004649901011
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. G. Mouton, J. R. Bessell, K. T. Otten, G. J. Maddern

Abstract

In the context of the much-heralded advantages of laparoscopic surgery, it can be easy to overlook postlaparoscopy pain as a serious problem, yet as many as 80% of patients will require opioid analgesia. It generally is accepted that pain after laparoscopy is multifactorial, and the surgeon is in a unique position to influence many of the putative causes by relatively minor changes in technique. This article reviews the relevant literature concerning the topic of pain after laparoscopy. The following factors, in varying degrees, have been implicated in postlaparoscopy pain: distension-induced neuropraxia of the phrenic nerves, acid intraperitoneal milieu during the operation, residual intra-abdominal gas after laparoscopy, humidity of the insufflated gas, volume of the insufflated gas, wound size, presence of drains, anesthetic drugs and their postoperation effects, and sociocultural and individual factors. On the basis of the factors implicated in postlaparoscopy pain, the following recommendations can be made in an attempt to reduce such pain: emphathically consider each patients' unique sociocultural and individual pain experience; inject port sites with local anesthesia at the start of the operation; keep intra-abdominal pressure during pneumoperitoneum below 15 mmHg, avoiding pressure peaks and prolonged insufflation; use humidified gas at body temperature if available; use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at the time of induction; attempt to evacuate all intraperitoneal gas at the end of the operation; and use drains only when required, rather than as a routine.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 14%
Student > Master 13 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 30 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 48%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 38 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,697,128
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#803
of 6,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,980
of 221,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#19
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,032 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 221,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.