↓ Skip to main content

Effect of interscalene block on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Effect of interscalene block on intraocular pressure and ocular perfusion pressure
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0436-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Betul Basaran, Aysun Ankay Yilbas, Zeki Gultekin

Abstract

Interscalene block (ISB) is commonly associated with Horner's syndrome due to spread of local anesthetic to the cervical sympathetic chain. Postganglionic neurons that originate from superior cervical ganglia form the sympathetic innervation of eye. Decrease in sympathetic tone may change intraocular pressure (IOP) and ocular perfusion pressure (OPP). The aim of the study was to investigate whether ISB affects IOP and/or OPP. Thirty patients scheduled for ambulatory shoulder surgery under regional anesthesia with a single-shot ISB (15 mL 0.5% bupivacaine and 15 mL 2% lidocaine) were recruited. The IOP and OPP in both eyes, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and end-tidal CO2 (ETCO2) were measured before ISB and 5, 10, 20, 30 and 60 min after ISB in the beach-chair position. The baseline IOP and OPP were similar in the blocked and unblocked sides (IOP 17.60 ± 1.69 and 17.40 ± 1.96 respectively p = 0.432; OPP 49.80 ± 8.20 and 50 ± 8.07 respectively p = 0.432). The IOP in the blocked side significantly decreased between 10th to 60th min following ISB, compared to the baseline values (p < 0.001). The OPP in the blocked side significantly increased from 10th to 60th min (p < 0.001) whereas, there were no significant changes in IOP and OPP throughout the measurement period in the unblocked side. ISB decreased IOP in the blocked side. ISB could be considered as a safe regional technique of choice in elderly patients at high risk for developing glaucoma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 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 > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 26%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Engineering 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
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 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,888
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#678
of 1,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,117
of 327,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#29
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 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 1,509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 327,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.