IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0231452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does deep neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopy procedures change patient, surgical, and healthcare resource outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Amit D Raval
  • Sohan Deshpande
  • Silvia Rabar
  • Maria Koufopoulou
  • Binod Neupane
  • Ike Iheanacho
  • Lori D Bash
  • Jay Horrow
  • Thomas Fuchs-Buder

Abstract

Background: Deep neuromuscular blockade may facilitate the use of reduced insufflation pressure without compromising the surgical field of vision. The current evidence, which suggests improved surgical conditions compared with other levels of block during laparoscopic surgery, features significant heterogeneity. We examined surgical patient- and healthcare resource use-related outcomes of deep neuromuscular blockade compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review according to the quality standards recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of deep neuromuscular blockade and moderate neuromuscular blockade among adults undergoing laparoscopic surgeries were included. A random-effects model was used to conduct pair-wise meta-analyses. Results: The systematic literature review included 15 studies—only 13 were analyzable in the meta-analysis and none were judged to be at high risk of bias. Compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade, deep neuromuscular blockade was associated with improved surgical field of vision and higher vision quality scores. Also, deep neuromuscular blockade was associated with a reduction in the post-operative pain scores in the post-anesthesia care unit compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade, and there was no need for an increase in intra-abdominal pressure during the surgical procedures. There were minor savings on resource utilization, but no differences were seen in recovery in the post-anesthesia care unit or overall length of hospital stay with deep neuromuscular blockade. Conclusions: Deep neuromuscular blockade may aid the patient and physician surgical experience by improving certain patient outcomes, such as post-operative pain and improved surgical ratings, compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade. Heterogeneity in the pooled estimates suggests the need for better designed randomized controlled trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Amit D Raval & Sohan Deshpande & Silvia Rabar & Maria Koufopoulou & Binod Neupane & Ike Iheanacho & Lori D Bash & Jay Horrow & Thomas Fuchs-Buder, 2020. "Does deep neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopy procedures change patient, surgical, and healthcare resource outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-14, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231452
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231452
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231452&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0231452?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231452. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.