Deep neuromuscular block reduces the incidence of intra-operative complications during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of deep neuromuscular block on the quality of early recovery after sleeve gastrectomy in obese patients: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Deep neuromuscular block (NMB) has been shown to improve surgical conditions and alleviate post-operative pain in bariatric surgery compared with moderate NMB. We hypothesized that deep NMB could also improve the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

METHODS

Eighty patients were randomized to receive either deep (post-tetanic count 1-3) or moderate (train-of-four count 1-3) NMB. The QoR-15 questionnaire was used to evaluate the quality of early recovery at 1 day before surgery (T0), 24 and 48 h after surgery (T2, T3). Additionally, we recorded diaphragm excursion (DE), postoperative pain, surgical condition, cumulative dose of analgesics, time of first flatus and ambulation, post-operative nausea and vomiting, time of tracheal tube removal and hospitalization time.

MAIN RESULTS

The quality of recovery was significantly better 24 h after surgery in patients who received a deep versus moderate block (114.4 ± 12.9 versus 102.1 ± 18.1). Diaphragm excursion was significantly greater in the deep NMB group when patients performed maximal inspiration at T2 and T3 (P < 0.05). Patients who underwent deep NMB reported lower visceral pain scores 40 min after surgery; additionally, these patients experienced lower pain during movement at T3 (P < 0.05). Optimal surgical conditions were rated in 87.5% and 64.6% of all measurements during deep and moderate NMB respectively (P < 0.001). The time to tracheal tube removal was significantly longer in the deep NMB group (P = 0.001). There were no differences in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In obese patients receiving deep NMB during LSG, we observed improved QoR-15 scores, greater diaphragmatic excursions, improved surgical conditions, and visceral pain scores were lower. More evidence is needed to determine the effects of deep NMB on these outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2200065919. Date of retrospectively registered: 18/11/2022.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.