↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Infraorbital nerve block for postoperative pain following cleft lip repair in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
11 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


13 Dimensions

Readers on

152 Mendeley
Infraorbital nerve block for postoperative pain following cleft lip repair in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011131.pub2
Pubmed ID

Gustavo Feriani, Eric Hatanaka, Maria Regina Torloni, Edina MK da Silva


Postoperative pain is a barrier to the quality of paediatric care, the proper management of which is a challenge. Acute postoperative pain often leads to adverse functional and organic consequences that may compromise surgical outcome. Cleft lip is one of the most common craniofacial birth defects and requires surgical correction early in life. As expected after a surgical intervention in such a sensitive and delicate area, the immediate postoperative period of cleft lip repair may be associated with moderate to severe pain. Infraorbital nerve block associated with general anaesthesia has been used to reduce postoperative pain after cleft lip repair. To assess the effects of infraorbital nerve block for postoperative pain following cleft lip repair in children. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2015), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) from inception to 17 June 2015. There were no language restrictions. We searched for ongoing trials in the following platforms: the metaRegister of Controlled Trials; ClinicalTrials.gov (the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (on 17 June 2015). We checked reference lists of the included studies to identify any additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field and authors of the included trials for unpublished data. We included randomised controlled clinical trials that tested perioperative infraorbital nerve block for cleft lip repair in children, compared with other types of analgesia procedure, no intervention, or placebo (sham nerve block). We considered the type of drug, dosage, and route of administration used in each study. For the purposes of this review, the term 'perioperative' refers to the three phases of surgery, that is preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative, and commonly includes ward admission, anaesthesia, surgery, and recovery. Two review authors (GF and EH) independently identified, screened, and selected the studies, assessed trial quality, and performed data extraction using the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group criteria. In case of disagreements, a third review author (EMKS) was consulted. We assessed the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included eight studies involving 353 children in the review. These studies reported different types of interventions (lignocaine or bupivacaine), observation times, and forms of measuring and describing the outcomes, making it difficult to conduct meta-analyses. In the comparison of infraorbital nerve block versus placebo, there was a large effect in mean postoperative pain scores (our first primary outcome) favouring the intervention group (standardised mean difference (SMD) -3.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.13 to -0.95; very low-quality evidence; 3 studies; 120 children). Only one study reported the duration of analgesia (in hours) (second primary outcome) with a difference favouring the intervention group (mean difference (MD) 8.26 hours, 95% CI 5.41 to 11.11; very low-quality evidence) and less supplemental analgesic requirements in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18; low-quality evidence). In the comparison of infraorbital nerve block versus intravenous analgesia, there was a difference favouring the intervention group in mean postoperative pain scores (SMD -1.50, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.60; very low-quality evidence; 2 studies; 107 children) and in the time to feeding (MD -9.45 minutes, 95% CI -17.37 to -1.53; moderate-quality evidence; 2 studies; 128 children). No significant adverse events (third primary outcome) were associated with the intervention, although three studies did not report this outcome. Five out of eight studies found no unwanted side effects after the nerve blocks. Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. The reasons for downgrading the quality of the evidence using GRADE related to the lack of information about randomisation methods and allocation concealment in the studies, very small sample sizes, and heterogeneity of outcome reporting. There is low- to very low-quality evidence that infraorbital nerve block with lignocaine or bupivacaine may reduce postoperative pain more than placebo and intravenous analgesia in children undergoing cleft lip repair. Further studies with larger samples are needed. Future studies should standardise the observation time and the instruments used to measure outcomes, and stratify children by age group.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 150 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 24%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 17%
Psychology 8 5%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 46 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 03 September 2016.
All research outputs
of 17,465,371 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,465,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 270,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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 62% of its contemporaries.