↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of sciatic nerve damage following intraneural injection of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and lidocaine in rats

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Evaluation of sciatic nerve damage following intraneural injection of bupivacaine, levobupivacaine and lidocaine in rats
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition), May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.09.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oznur Sen, Nevzat Cem Sayilgan, Ayse Cigdem Tutuncu, Mefkur Bakan, Guniz Meyanci Koksal, Huseyin Oz

Abstract

The local anesthetics may cause neurotoxicity. We aimed to compare the neurotoxic potential of different local anesthetics, local anesthetic induced nerve damage and pathological changes of a peripheral nerve. Sixty Wistar rats weighing 200-350g were studied. Rats were assigned into 3 groups and 26-gauge needle was inserted under magnification into the left sciatic nerve and 0.2mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 5% levobupivacaine, and 2% lidocaine were injected intraneurally. An individual who was blind to the specifics of the injection monitored the neurologic function on postoperative 1st day, and daily thereafter. Neurologic examination included assessment for the presence and severity of nociception and grasping reflexes. At the 7th day sciatic nerve specimen was taken for evaluation of histopathologic changes. There was no statistical difference detected among groups regarding grasping reflex and histopathologic evaluation. Two cases in bupivacaine group, 1 case in levobupivacaine group and 2 cases in lidocaine group had slight grasping, while 1 case in lidocaine group had no grasping reflex on the seventh day. Severe axonal degeneration was observed in all groups, respectively in bupivacaine group 4 (20%), levobupivacaine group 3 (15%), and lidocaine group 6 (30%). In all groups, histopathological damage frequency and severity were more than the motor deficiency.

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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Master 3 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Mathematics 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#23,319,379
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,109
of 313,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English edition)
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 313,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.