↓ Skip to main content

The Opioid-Sparing Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Plus Sufentanil Infusion during Neurosurgery: A Retrospective Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
The Opioid-Sparing Effect of Perioperative Dexmedetomidine Plus Sufentanil Infusion during Neurosurgery: A Retrospective Study
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00407
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiyu Su, Chunguang Ren, Hongquan Zhang, Zhong Liu, Zongwang Zhang

Abstract

Background: Approximately 60% of patients experience moderate-to-severe pain after neurosurgery, which primarily occurs in the first 24-72 h. Despite this, improved postoperative analgesia solutions after neurosurgery have not yet been devised. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the effect of intra- and post-operative infusions of dexmedetomidine (DEX) plus sufentanil on the quality of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing neurosurgery. Methods: One hundred and sixty-three post-neurosurgery patients were divided into two groups: Group D (DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg(-1) for 10 min, then adjusted to 0.3 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1) until incision suturing) and Group ND (no DEX infusion during surgery). Patient-controlled analgesia was administered for 72 h after surgery (Group D: sufentanil 0.02 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1) plus DEX 0.02 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1), Group ND: sufentanil 0.02 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1)) in this retrospective study. The primary outcome measure was postoperative sufentanil consumption. Hemodynamics, requirement of narcotic, and vasoactive drugs, recovery time and the incidence of concerning adverse effects were recorded. Pain intensity [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)], Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) and Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) were also evaluated at 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery. Results: Postoperative sufentanil consumption was significantly lower in Group D during the first 72 h after surgery (P < 0.05). Compared with Group ND, heart rate (HR) in Group D was significantly decreased from intubation to 20 min after arriving at post anesthesia care unit (PACU), while mean arterial pressure (MAP) in Group D was significantly decreased from intubation to 5 min after arriving at PACU (P < 0.05). The intraoperative requirements for sevoflurane, remifentanil, and fentanyl were approximately 35% less in Group D compared with Group ND. VAS at rest at 1, 4, and 8 h and with cough at 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery were significantly lower in Group D (P < 0.05). Compared with Group ND, patients in Group D showed lower levels of overall incidence of tachycardia, hypertension, nausea, and vomiting (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of baseline clinical characteristics, recovery time, RSS, and BCS (P > 0.05). Conclusions: DEX (0.02 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1)) plus sufentanil (0.02 μg·kg(-1)·h(-1)) could reduce postoperative opioid consumption and concerning adverse adverse effects, while improving pain scores. However, it did not influence RSS and BCS during the first 72 h after neurosurgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 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 %
Researcher 4 12%
Professor 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,867,424
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#5,237
of 16,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,935
of 314,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#74
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 314,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.