Postextubation Respiratory Muscle Recovery After Sugammadex or Neostigmine: A Randomized Controlled Ultrasonographic Trial in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

IF 1.5 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2026-09-28 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1155/anrp/3991360
Mohamed A F Ghoneim, Asmaa AboBakr AbdAllah Mohamed, Laila Ali El-Said El-Kafrawy, Ashraf Mahmoud Hazem Mohamed, Ahmed Wageh Ezzat Desoky
{"title":"Postextubation Respiratory Muscle Recovery After Sugammadex or Neostigmine: A Randomized Controlled Ultrasonographic Trial in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.","authors":"Mohamed A F Ghoneim, Asmaa AboBakr AbdAllah Mohamed, Laila Ali El-Said El-Kafrawy, Ashraf Mahmoud Hazem Mohamed, Ahmed Wageh Ezzat Desoky","doi":"10.1155/anrp/3991360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sugammadex minimizes the residual neuromuscular block risk. By enhancing the function of expiratory muscles, it improves the clearance of secretions and helps prevent lung collapse, leading to a reduction in early postoperative respiratory issues. The study aims to compare the efficacy of sugammadex in promoting the recovery of expiratory muscle power to that of neostigmine following extubation.</p><p><strong>Study objectives: </strong>The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of sugammadex and neostigmine as a reversal of neuromuscular block, assessed through ultrasonographic evaluation of expiratory muscle strength, specifically the thickening fraction of the internal oblique muscle (TFIO). The secondary objective was to assess diaphragmatic excursion (DE) and to explore the usefulness of ultrasonography in comparison to train-of-four (TOF) monitoring.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The study involved a total of 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between August 2023 and September 2024. Patients were randomly assessed into two groups for a comparative study. Group A received sugammadex, while Group B received neostigmine. The study utilized ultrasonography to measure the TFIO, reflecting expiratory muscle power, and DE, representing inspiratory muscle strength. Measurements were taken at three points in time: preinduction (baseline), at the TOF ratio recovery (TOFR) to 0.9, and 30 minutes postarrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the variation in TFIO from baseline to a TOFR of ≥ 0.9. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative variation in DE from baseline, the incidence of recovery to baseline TFIO and DE, and the time taken for TOFR recovery to 0.95 and 1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant difference in the primary outcome was observed among 60 patients. The alteration in TFIO from baseline to TOFR ≥ 0.9 was markedly reduced with sugammadex relative to neostigmine (mean ± SD: 9.13 ± 6.25 vs. 19.32 ± 5.75; adjusted <i>p</i> < 0.001). Sugammadex resulted in a significantly smaller reduction in DE from initial values to TOFR ≥ 0.9 compared to neostigmine (right side: 1.91 ± 0.66 vs. 2.34 ± 0.52; adjusted <i>p</i> < 0.05). Thirty minutes post-PACU arrival, a greater percentage of patients in the sugammadex group reached baseline TFIO in comparison to the neostigmine group (67% vs. 47%); even so, the difference was not of statistical significance (corrected <i>p</i> value = 0.118). The rate of TFIO and DE returning to initial values remained low for both groups, even after TOFR reached 1. The sugammadex group exhibited a significantly accelerated recovery of neuromuscular function. The median recovery time for the TOFR from 0.9 to 0.95 was 0.32 min, compared to 1.74 min with neostigmine (corrected <i>p</i> < 0.001). The median recovery time from 0.9 to 1.0 was 0.53 min, compared to 5.13 min (corrected <i>p</i> < 0.001). The neostigmine group exhibited a higher incidence of postoperative complications, including atelectasis (16.7% vs. 10%), hypoxia (16.7% vs. 6.7%), tachycardia (40% vs. 0%), PONV (16.7% vs. 10%), recurarization (3.3% vs. 0%), and other adverse drug effects (10% vs. 6.6%). No cases of reintubation, airway obstruction, pulmonary edema, or postoperative residual paralysis were observed in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sugammadex results in better expiratory muscle power recovery compared to neostigmine at TOFR of ≥ 0.9. These findings highlight that respiratory muscle function may remain compromised, although a TOFR of 1.0 is achieved. <b>Trial Registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06432621.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2026 ","pages":"3991360"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13618562/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/anrp/3991360","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sugammadex minimizes the residual neuromuscular block risk. By enhancing the function of expiratory muscles, it improves the clearance of secretions and helps prevent lung collapse, leading to a reduction in early postoperative respiratory issues. The study aims to compare the efficacy of sugammadex in promoting the recovery of expiratory muscle power to that of neostigmine following extubation.

Study objectives: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of sugammadex and neostigmine as a reversal of neuromuscular block, assessed through ultrasonographic evaluation of expiratory muscle strength, specifically the thickening fraction of the internal oblique muscle (TFIO). The secondary objective was to assess diaphragmatic excursion (DE) and to explore the usefulness of ultrasonography in comparison to train-of-four (TOF) monitoring.

Patients and methods: The study involved a total of 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy between August 2023 and September 2024. Patients were randomly assessed into two groups for a comparative study. Group A received sugammadex, while Group B received neostigmine. The study utilized ultrasonography to measure the TFIO, reflecting expiratory muscle power, and DE, representing inspiratory muscle strength. Measurements were taken at three points in time: preinduction (baseline), at the TOF ratio recovery (TOFR) to 0.9, and 30 minutes postarrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The primary outcome was the variation in TFIO from baseline to a TOFR of ≥ 0.9. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative variation in DE from baseline, the incidence of recovery to baseline TFIO and DE, and the time taken for TOFR recovery to 0.95 and 1.

Results: A significant difference in the primary outcome was observed among 60 patients. The alteration in TFIO from baseline to TOFR ≥ 0.9 was markedly reduced with sugammadex relative to neostigmine (mean ± SD: 9.13 ± 6.25 vs. 19.32 ± 5.75; adjusted p < 0.001). Sugammadex resulted in a significantly smaller reduction in DE from initial values to TOFR ≥ 0.9 compared to neostigmine (right side: 1.91 ± 0.66 vs. 2.34 ± 0.52; adjusted p < 0.05). Thirty minutes post-PACU arrival, a greater percentage of patients in the sugammadex group reached baseline TFIO in comparison to the neostigmine group (67% vs. 47%); even so, the difference was not of statistical significance (corrected p value = 0.118). The rate of TFIO and DE returning to initial values remained low for both groups, even after TOFR reached 1. The sugammadex group exhibited a significantly accelerated recovery of neuromuscular function. The median recovery time for the TOFR from 0.9 to 0.95 was 0.32 min, compared to 1.74 min with neostigmine (corrected p < 0.001). The median recovery time from 0.9 to 1.0 was 0.53 min, compared to 5.13 min (corrected p < 0.001). The neostigmine group exhibited a higher incidence of postoperative complications, including atelectasis (16.7% vs. 10%), hypoxia (16.7% vs. 6.7%), tachycardia (40% vs. 0%), PONV (16.7% vs. 10%), recurarization (3.3% vs. 0%), and other adverse drug effects (10% vs. 6.6%). No cases of reintubation, airway obstruction, pulmonary edema, or postoperative residual paralysis were observed in either group.

Conclusion: Sugammadex results in better expiratory muscle power recovery compared to neostigmine at TOFR of ≥ 0.9. These findings highlight that respiratory muscle function may remain compromised, although a TOFR of 1.0 is achieved. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06432621.

拔管后糖马德或新斯的明后呼吸肌恢复:腹腔镜胆囊切除术的随机对照超声试验。
背景:Sugammadex可将残余神经肌肉阻滞风险降至最低。通过增强呼气肌的功能,它可以改善分泌物的清除,有助于防止肺塌陷,从而减少术后早期呼吸问题。本研究旨在比较糖麦酮与新斯的明在拔管后促进呼气肌力恢复的疗效。研究目的:本研究的主要目的是通过超声评估呼气肌力,特别是内斜肌增厚分数(TFIO)来评估糖玛德和新斯的明作为神经肌肉阻滞逆转的有效性。次要目的是评估膈偏移(DE),并探讨超声检查与四组(TOF)监测的有效性。患者和方法:该研究共涉及60名在2023年8月至2024年9月期间接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者。患者被随机分为两组进行比较研究。A组给予糖玛德,B组给予新斯的明。本研究利用超声测量TFIO,反映呼气肌力,DE,代表吸气肌力。在三个时间点进行测量:诱导前(基线)、TOF比率恢复(TOFR)至0.9时和麻醉后护理单元(PACU) 30分钟后。主要终点是TFIO从基线到TOFR≥0.9的变化。次要结局包括术后DE较基线的变化,恢复至基线TFIO和DE的发生率,TOFR恢复所需时间分别为0.95和1。结果:60例患者的主要转归有显著差异。相对于新斯的明,使用糖马迪可显著降低TFIO从基线到TOFR≥0.9的变化(平均±SD: 9.13±6.25 vs. 19.32±5.75;调整后p < 0.001)。与新斯的明相比,Sugammadex使DE从初始值降低到TOFR≥0.9的幅度明显小于新斯的明(右侧:1.91±0.66 vs 2.34±0.52;调整后p < 0.05)。pacu到达30分钟后,与新斯的明组相比,糖马德组患者达到基线TFIO的比例更高(67%对47%);即使如此,差异也没有统计学意义(校正p值= 0.118)。两组的TFIO和DE恢复到初始值的比率仍然很低,即使在TOFR达到1后也是如此。sugammadex组神经肌肉功能恢复明显加快。TOFR从0.9到0.95的中位恢复时间为0.32 min,而新斯的明组为1.74 min(校正p < 0.001)。从0.9到1.0的中位恢复时间为0.53 min,而5.13 min(校正p < 0.001)。新斯的明组术后并发症发生率较高,包括肺不张(16.7%比10%)、缺氧(16.7%比6.7%)、心动过速(40%比0%)、PONV(16.7%比10%)、复发(3.3%比0%)和其他药物不良反应(10%比6.6%)。两组均无再插管、气道阻塞、肺水肿、术后残瘫病例。结论:在TOFR≥0.9时,与新斯的明相比,Sugammadex的呼气肌力恢复效果更好。这些发现强调,尽管TOFR达到了1.0,但呼吸肌功能可能仍然受到损害。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT06432621。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书