↓ Skip to main content

Limitation in monitoring depth of anesthesia: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Anesthesia, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Limitation in monitoring depth of anesthesia: a case report
Published in
Journal of Anesthesia, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00540-015-2112-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Cascella, Francesca Bifulco, Daniela Viscardi, Maura C. Tracey, Domenico Carbone, Arturo Cuomo

Abstract

Although we describe a clinical situation that most likely occurs in hundreds of operatory rooms in the world, we report this case as provocation. It concerns an unexpected awakening from an appropriate depth of anesthesia, although the BIS monitor showed a BIS index of less than 50 for a prolonged period before and after the event. Approximately 30 min after induction of anesthesia, the patient had a hypothetic sudden arousal of consciousness, with spontaneous movements, facial muscle activation, intolerance to the tracheal tube, and tearing. After immediate intravenous administration of midazolam (4 mg), the patient returned to a depth of anesthesia status, and surgery was completed uneventfully. The patient had no recall of the event when questioned during the episode, at emergence, or at 24 h, 36 h, and 7 days after surgery. Were these events spinal reflexes to pain or stimulation although the cortex was still anesthetized? Maybe this is the more rational explanation. Was the patient awake but not aware? Is it possible that our patient experienced only a transient arousal from consciousness, and that he did not have recall because the arousal time was short and we blocked memory consolidation? The latter hypothesis provides an opportunity to discuss the evidence that at the moment there is no device to assess the depth of anesthesia. We also focus on the possibility of interfering with memory processing under anesthesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 12 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#17,755,635
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Anesthesia
#526
of 812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,647
of 390,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Anesthesia
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 812 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 390,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 52% of its contemporaries.