| Title |
Local Infiltration of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Mastectomy with Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-015-4670-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jad M. Abdelsattar, Amy C. Degnim, Tina J. Hieken, Michel Saint-Cyr, Judy C. Boughey |
| Abstract |
Mastectomy with immediate tissue expander reconstruction is associated with postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Various techniques of perioperative and postoperative pain control have been described. Our standard of care for postsurgical pain management in patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate tissue expander reconstruction has been preoperative ultrasound-guided paravertebral block. Recent literature demonstrating the opioid-sparing benefits of liposomal bupivacaine has directed two of our plastic surgeons to pilot its use in immediate tissue expander reconstruction. In the accompanying video, we present our technique of intraoperative local infiltration of liposomal bupivacaine into the base of mastectomy skin flaps, serratus fascia, and periaxillary tissue after completion of the mastectomy and before tissue expander placement into the reconstruction pocket. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 32% |
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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,231,810
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,058
of 6,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,577
of 263,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#49
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 263,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 55% of its contemporaries.