↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative evaluation of tumescent anaesthesia technique in bitches submitted to unilateral mastectomy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Veterinary Research, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Perioperative evaluation of tumescent anaesthesia technique in bitches submitted to unilateral mastectomy
Published in
BMC Veterinary Research, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-6148-9-178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo de Freitas Guimaraes Arcoverde Credie, Stelio Pacca Loureiro Luna, Fabio Futema, Luciano Cacciari Baruffaldi Almeida da Silva, Giancarlo Bressane Gomes, Jaqueline Neratika Negrette Garcia, Lidia Raquel de Carvalho

Abstract

Tumescent anaesthesia (TA) is a widely used technique in oncologic surgeries necessitating large resection margins. This technique produces transoperative and postoperative analgesia, reduces surgical bleeding, and facilitates tissue divulsion. This prospective, randomised, blind study evaluated the use of TA in bitches submitted to mastectomy and compared the effect of TA with an intravenous fentanyl bolus. A 2.5-mcg/kg intravenous fentanyl bolus (n = 10) was compared with TA using 0.275% lidocaine (n = 10) in bitches submitted to unilateral mastectomy. Sedation was performed by intramuscular (IM) injection of 0.05 mg/kg of acepromazine combined with 2 mg/kg of meperidine. Anaesthesia was induced with 5 mg/kg of intravenous propofol and maintained with isoflurane/O2. Heart and respiratory rates; systolic, mean, and diastolic arterial blood pressures; central venous pressure; SpO2; ETCO2; inspired and expired isoflurane concentrations; and temperature were measured transoperatively. Visual analogue scales for sedation and pain and the Glasgow composite and Melbourne pain scales were used for postoperative assessment. The surgeon investigated the quality of the surgical approach, considering bleeding and resection ability, and the incidence of postoperative wound complications.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 18%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 27 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,375,665
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Veterinary Research
#624
of 3,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,125
of 198,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Veterinary Research
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,037 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 198,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 72% of its contemporaries.