Deep versus Moderate Neuromuscular Blockade in Gynecologic Laparoscopic Operations: Randomized Controlled Trial

Author:

Kathopoulis NikolaosORCID,Protopapas Athanasios,Stamatakis EmmanouilORCID,Chatzipapas Ioannis,Zacharakis Dimitrios,Grigoriadis ThemosORCID,Athanasiou Stavros,Valsmidis Dimitrios

Abstract

Background: To investigate whether deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) improves surgical conditions and postoperative pain compared to moderate block, in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Methods: A single blind, randomized, controlled trial was undertaken with laparoscopic gynecologic surgical patients, who were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: patients in the first group received deep NMB (PTC 0-1) and in the other, moderate NMB (TOF 0-1). Primary outcomes included assessing the surgical conditions using a four-grade scale, ranging from 0 (extremely poor) to 3 (optimal), and patients’ postoperative pain was evaluated with a five-grade Likert scale and the analgesic consumption. Results: 144 patients were analyzed as follows: 73 patients received deep NMB and 71 moderate NMB. Mean surgical field scores were comparable between the two groups (2.44 for moderate vs. 2.68 for deep NMB). Regarding postoperative pain scores, the patients in the deep NMB experienced significantly less pain than in the group of moderate NMB (0.79 vs. 1.58, p < 0.001). Moreover, when the consumption of analgesic drugs was compared, the moderate NMB group needed more extra opioid analgesia than the deep NMB group (18.3% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.007). From the secondary endpoints, an interesting finding of the study was that patients on deep NMB had significantly fewer incidents of subcutaneous emphysema. Conclusions: Our data show that, during the performance of gynecologic laparoscopic surgery, deep NMB offers no advantage of operating filed conditions compared with moderate NMB. Patients may benefit from the deep block as it may reduce postoperative pain.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3