↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness of a visual aid in achieving optimal positioning for spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Usefulness of a visual aid in achieving optimal positioning for spinal anesthesia: a randomized trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0467-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Usha Gurunathan, Shakeel Meeran Kunju, Karen Elizabeth Hay, Sharyn van Alphen

Abstract

Optimal patient positioning is perceived as an essential factor to increase the success of performing neuraxial blockade. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the benefit of using a visual image in addition to verbal instructions in order to optimize positioning for spinal block. This was a prospective randomized controlled trial on 85 adult patients undergoing lower limb joint replacements at a tertiary academic hospital. Group 1(n = 43) randomized to receive standardized verbal instructions; Group 2 (n = 42) received standardized verbal instructions in conjunction with visual aids to achieve positioning for spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was the time taken to successful dural puncture. Secondary endpoints were the number of skin punctures, number of intervertebral levels attempted, success at the first intervertebral space attempted and satisfaction of patients and anesthesiologists. The unadjusted geometric mean time taken for the procedure using verbal instruction alone was 301 s (95% CI: 236-385) compared to 183 s (95% CI: 143-235) when both verbal and visual instructions were used. Out of the participants in group 2, 90% required ≤2 skin punctures and 10% required ≥3 skin punctures compared to 65% and 35% of the participants in group 1 respectively (p = 0.001). Group 1 required a second anesthesiologist to successfully complete the procedure in 6 patients out of 43 (14%) patients whereas the first anesthesiologist was noted to be successful in all the 42 cases in group 2 (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in the satisfaction scores of anesthesiologists or patients between the groups. First-pass success was strongly associated with patient satisfaction (Odds ratio: 5.2; 95% CI: 1.0-9.5, p = 0.049). Use of a visual aid in addition to verbal instructions to optimize positioning for a spinal block, significantly reduces the time taken for the procedure by an average of 2 min, reduces the number of skin punctures and increases the success rate of the first anesthesiologist. First pass success was strongly associated with patient satisfaction. This study was retrospectively registered 30 August 2016, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical trials registry (ACTRN12616001197426).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Other 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Lecturer 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 20%
Linguistics 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,363,602
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#379
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,621
of 445,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 445,572 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 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 66% of its contemporaries.