Does Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improve Operating Conditions during Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Total Hip Replacements?: A Randomized Controlled Trial

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is thought to improve operative conditions during certain procedures. Published descriptions of minimally invasive hip replacement techniques specify the need for “excellent relaxation”, however, the optimal degree of NMB required for such cases has not been studied. We performed a randomized, single-blind study comparing the effect of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade on surgical conditions and operating time during minimally invasive anterolateral hip replacement. Vecuronium was administered to maintain moderate NMB (train-of-four count of 1-2) or deep NMB (train-of-four count of 0, post-tetanic count of 1-2).

Methods

In this study, 116 patients were randomized to receive moderate or deep neuromuscular blockade; depth of blockade was monitored using acceleromyography. The primary outcome was the number of requests from the surgeon for additional blockade intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative times and assessment of the operative conditions by the surgeon utilizing the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale.

Results

Cases with additional requests for blockade did not differ between the deep and moderate NMB groups (11/58, 19.0% vs 8/58, 13.8%); relative risk, 1.22 (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.70-2.15), p=0.62. Neither time from incision to prosthesis reduction (33.8±1.2 min vs. 32.6 ±1.2 min; difference in geometric mean, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04] minutes, p=0.33), nor the surgeon’s assessment of operative conditions (p=0.88), differed between the deep or moderate NMB groups, respectively.

Conclusions

Deep NMB did not produce significantly improved operative conditions compared with moderate NMB. Routine use of deep NMB during minimally invasive anterolateral hip arthroplasty is not supported by this study.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Reversal of profound rocuronium-induced blockade with sugammadex: a randomized comparison with neostigmine.

Sorin Brull, Laura B K R Jones, James Caldwell … (2008)

Traditionally, reversal of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents was achieved using acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, but these are unable to adequately reverse profound blockade. Sugammadex is a novel reversal agent, reversing the effects of rocuronium by encapsulation. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. This phase III, randomized study enrolled surgical patients, aged 18 yr or older with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-IV. Patients were randomized to receive sugammadex (4.0 mg/kg) or neostigmine (70 microg/kg) plus glycopyrrolate (14 microg/kg). Anesthetized patients received an intubating dose of rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg), with maintenance doses (0.15 mg/kg) as required. Neuromuscular monitoring was performed by acceleromyography. Sugammadex or neostigmine was administered at reappearance of 1-2 posttetanic counts (profound neuromuscular blockade). The primary efficacy parameter was the time from sugammadex or neostigmine-glycopyrrolate administration to return of the train-of-four ratio to 0.9. In the intent-to-treat population (n = 37 in each group), geometric mean time to recovery to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 with sugammadex was 2.9 min versus 50.4 min with neostigmine-glycopyrrolate (P < 0.0001) (median, 2.7 min vs. 49.0 min). Most sugammadex patients (97%) recovered to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 within 5 min after administration. In contrast, most neostigmine patients (73%) recovered between 30 and 60 min after administration, with 23% requiring more than 60 min to recover to a train-of-four ratio of 0.9. Recovery from profound rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade was significantly faster with sugammadex versus with neostigmine, suggesting that sugammadex has a unique ability to rapidly reverse profound rocuronium neuromuscular blockade.

0 comments Cited 48 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Current Status of Neuromuscular Reversal and Monitoring: Challenges and Opportunities.

Sorin Brull, Aaron Kopman (2017)

Postoperative residual neuromuscular block has been recognized as a potential problem for decades, and it remains so today. Traditional pharmacologic antagonists (anticholinesterases) are ineffective in reversing profound and deep levels of neuromuscular block; at the opposite end of the recovery curve close to full recovery, anticholinesterases may induce paradoxical muscle weakness. The new selective relaxant-binding agent sugammadex can reverse any depth of block from aminosteroid (but not benzylisoquinolinium) relaxants; however, the effective dose to be administered should be chosen based on objective monitoring of the depth of neuromuscular block.To guide appropriate perioperative management, neuromuscular function assessment with a peripheral nerve stimulator is mandatory. Although in many settings, subjective (visual and tactile) evaluation of muscle responses is used, such evaluation has had limited success in preventing the occurrence of residual paralysis. Clinical evaluations of return of muscle strength (head lift and grip strength) or respiratory parameters (tidal volume and vital capacity) are equally insensitive at detecting neuromuscular weakness. Objective measurement (a train-of-four ratio greater than 0.90) is the only method to determine appropriate timing of tracheal extubation and ensure normal muscle function and patient safety.

0 comments Cited 42 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis.

Chinundorn Putananon, Harit Tuchinda, Alisara Arirachakaran … (2018)

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is generally considered to be one of the most successful orthopedic surgical procedures. THA patients continue to experience symptoms, most commonly pain, which prevent their return to full function and activity. Possible causes include failure of fixation, instability and damage to soft tissues, associated with the trauma of the surgical procedure. Choosing the optimal surgical approach can minimize these risks and therefore improve the outcome of THA. Surgical approaches in THA include anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 techniques. However, there is no current consensus regarding which approach is the most suitable. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications among THA approach and identify which approach is the best for THA. We searched all RCT studies that compared intra-operative and postoperative outcomes of anterior, lateral [anterolateral (Hardinge) and direct lateral (Watson-Jones)], posterior (posterolateral and posterior) and posterior-2 approaches for THA from the PubMed and Scopus databases up to February 1, 2017. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. A network meta-analysis was applied to assess treatment outcomes. Probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Fourteen RCTs (N = 1017 patients) met inclusion criteria. Interventions were anterior (N = 233 patients), lateral (N = 334 patients), posterior (N = 405 patients) and posterior-2 (N = 45 patients) approaches. A network meta-analysis showed that effects of anterior approach were higher to lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches with the pooled mean postoperative within 1 month and last follow-up of HHS of 2.56 (95% CI - 0.79, 5.91), 4.80 (95% CI 1.33, 8.26), 10.80 (95% CI 2.10, 19.49) and 6.40 (95% CI 0.72, 12.09), 2.22 (95% CI - 3.21, 7.66), 4.22 (95% CI - 6.81, 15.25), respectively. For VAS, lateral approach was lower to anterior, posterior and posterior-2 approaches. In terms of complication, posterior approach was the lowest risk with RR of 0.39 (95% CI 0.19, 0.81), 0.57 (95% CI 0.21, 1.57) and 1.74 (95% CI 0.36, 8.33) when compared to anterior, followed by lateral and posterior-2 approaches. Results of SUCRA indicated anterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative HHS and VAS score, while posterior and lateral approaches were the first and second ranks for postoperative complications. We recommended using lateral approach that has an acceptable postoperative pain, function and complications (second rank for all outcomes) as a surgical technique for THA.

0 comments Cited 27 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cureus

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Cureus

Journal ID (issn): 2168-8184

Title: Cureus

Publisher: Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )

ISSN (Electronic): 2168-8184

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 9 September 2020

Publication date (Electronic, collection): September 2020

Volume: 12

Issue: 9

Electronic Location Identifier: e10328

Affiliations

[1 ] Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, USA

[2 ] Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, USA

[3 ] Orthopaedic Surgery, Maine Medical Center, Portland, USA

Author notes

Craig Curry craig.curry@ 123456spectrumhcp.com

Article

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10328

PMC ID: 7546586

PubMed ID: 33052289

SO-VID: 8b55ba8f-ffec-41b9-9898-8e7284ecb95f

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 11 May 2020

Date accepted : 20 August 2020

Funding

This study used a REDCap database, supported by NIH grant UL1TR001064. Statistical support for this project was supported in part by the Northern New England Clinical and Translational Research Center’s NIH grant U54GM115516.