↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of lumbar plexus block using the short axis in-plane method at the plane of the transverse process and at the articular process: a randomized controlled trial

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Comparison of lumbar plexus block using the short axis in-plane method at the plane of the transverse process and at the articular process: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0480-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rui Lu, Chengcheng Shen, Chunyong Yang, Yan Chen, Juanjuan Li, Kaizhi Lu

Abstract

Although the safety and effectiveness of the short-axis in-plane method has been confirmed for lumbar plexus block, the operation is difficult and has a high rate of epidural spread at the plane of the articular process. Therefore, we developed a new in-plane technique, called the beach chair method, which displays images from the transverse process. We compared the operative difficulty and incidence of epidural spread of the beach chair method with those of the control method (at the plane of the articular process) in this randomized controlled clinical trial. Sixty patients, aged 18 to 75 years, scheduled for unilateral arthroscopic knee surgery were randomized to receive double-guided lumbar plexus block by the beach chair method (n = 30) or the control method (n = 30) with 30 ml 0.5% ropivacaine hydrochloride; all patients received a sciatic nerve block with 10 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride and 10 ml 0.5% ropivacaine hydrochloride. The incidence of epidural spread after lumbar plexus block was significantly lower in the beach chair group than that in the control group [1 case (3.3%) vs. 9 (30.0%), P = 0.006]. Moreover, the imaging time (34.2 ± 16.7 s vs. 48.9 ± 16.8 s, P = 0.001), needling time (85.0 ± 45.3 s vs. 131.4 ± 88.2 s, P = 0.013) and number of needle punctures (2.7 ± 1.3 vs. 4.5 ± 2.1, P = 0.000) were significantly lower in the beach chair group than those in the control group; the ultrasound visibility score of the beach chair group was better than that of the control group. There were no significant differences in the remaining indicators. The beach chair method was easier and was associated with a lower incidence of epidural spread than the control method. Therefore, the beach chair method (at the plane of the transverse process) provides another promising option for lumbar plexus block for the non-obese population. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), Registration number:ChiCTR-INR-15007505, registered on November 06, 2015.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 22 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 23 46%
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 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,490,822
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#678
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,484
of 437,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#17
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 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 1,510 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 437,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.