Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum with deep neuromuscular blockade versus standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for gallstone disease: a non-inferiority randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) is an attempt at improving laparoscopic surgery. However, it has the issue of poor working space for which deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) may be a solution. There is a lack of literature comparing LPP with deep NMB to standard pressure pneumoperitoneum (SPP) with moderate NMB.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single institutional prospective non-inferiority RCT, with permuted block randomization of subjects into group A and B [Group A: LPP; 8-10 mmHg with deep NMB [ Train of Four count (TOF): 0, Post Tetanic Count (PTC): 1-2] and Group B: SPP; 12-14 mmHg with moderate NMB]. The level of NMB was monitored with neuromuscular monitor with TOF count and PTC. Cisatracurium infusion was used for continuous deep NMB in group A. Primary outcome measures were the surgeon satisfaction score and the time for completion of the procedure. Secondarily important clinical outcomes were also reported.

RESULTS

Of the 222 patients screened, 181 participants were enrolled [F: 138 (76.2%); M: 43 (23.8%); Group A n = 90, Group B n = 91]. Statistically similar surgeon satisfaction scores (26.1 ± 3.7 vs 26.4 ± 3.4; p = 0.52) and time for completion (55.2 ± 23.4 vs 52.5 ± 24.9 min; p = 0.46) were noted respectively in groups A and B. On both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis it was found that group A was non-inferior to group B in terms of total surgeon satisfaction score, however, non-inferiority was not proven for time for completion of surgery. Mean pain scores and incidence of shoulder pain were statistically similar up-to 7 days of follow-up in both groups. 4 (4.4%) patients in group B and 2 (2.2%) in group A had bradycardia (p = 0.4). Four (4.4%) cases of group A were converted to group B. One case of group B converted to open surgery. Bile spills and gallbladder perforations were comparable.

CONCLUSION

LPP with deep NMB is non-inferior to SPP with moderate NMB in terms of surgeon satisfaction score but not in terms of time required to complete the procedure. Clinical outcomes and safety profile are similar in both groups. However, it could be marginally costlier to use LPP with deep NMB.

Utilization of deep neuromuscular blockade combined with reduced abdominal pressure in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An academic perspective

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the specific efficacy of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) combined with pneumoperitoneal pressure reduction in laparoscopic radical gastrectomy (LRG) in the elderly.

AIM

To investigate the application effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) combined with reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure in LRG for gastric cancer (GC) in elderly patients and its influence on inflammation.

METHODS

Totally 103 elderly patients with GC treated in our hospital between January 2020 and January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 45 patients treated with surgery based on deep NMB and conventional pneumoperitoneum pressure were assigned to the control group, while the rest of the 58 patients who underwent surgery based on deep NMB and reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure were assigned to the observation group. The two groups were compared in the changes of the Leiden-surgical rating scale score, serum tumor necrosis fact-α (TNF-α) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) before and after therapy. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was adopted for evaluating the shoulder pain of patients at 8 h, 24 h and 48 h after the operation. The driving pressure of the two groups at different time points was also compared. Additionally, the operation time, pneumoperitoneum time, infusion volume, blood loss, extubation time after surgery, residence time in the resuscitation room, TOF% = 90% time and post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) stay time were all recorded, and adverse PACU-associated respiratory events were also recorded. The postoperative hospitalization time and postoperative expenses of the two groups were counted and compared.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups at the time of skin incision, 60 minutes since the operation and abdominal closure after surgery (P > 0.05). The observation group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores than the control group at 24 and 48h after surgery (P < 0.05). Additionally, the observation group had significantly lower driving pressure than the control group at 5 min and 60 min after the establishment of pneumoperitoneum (P < 0.05). Additionally, the two groups were similar in terms of the operation time, pneumoperitoneum time, infusion volume, blood loss, extubation time after surgery, residence time in the resuscitation room and TOF% = 90% time (P > 0.05), and the observation group showed significantly lower TNF-α and IL-6 Levels than the control group at 24 h after therapy (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), and the observation group experienced significantly less hospitalization time and postoperative expenses than the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB combined with reduced pneumoperitoneum pressure can decrease the VAS score of shoulder pain and inflammatory reaction, without hindering the surgical vision and increasing adverse PACU-associated respiratory events, and can thus shorten the hospitalization time and treatment cost for patient.

MRI measurement of the effects of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade on the abdominal working space during laparoscopic surgery, a clinical study

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist regarding the effects of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on abdominal dimensions during laparoscopic procedures. We performed a clinical study to establish the influence of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) on the abdominal working space, measured by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), during laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with standard pressure (12 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum under sevoflurane anaesthesia.

METHODS

Ten patients were intraoperatively scanned three times in the lateral decubitus position, with pneumoperitoneum maintained by a mobile insufflator. The first scan without NMB (T1) was followed by scans with moderate (T2) and deep NMB (T3). The skin-sacral promontory (S-SP) distance was measured, and 3D pneumoperitoneum volumes were reconstructed.

RESULTS

The mean difference in the S-SP distance was -0.32 cm between T2 and T3 (95% CI -1.06 - 0.42 cm; p = 0.344) and + 2.1 cm between T1 and T2 (95% CI 0.81 - 3.39 cm; p = 0.006). The mean differences in pneumoperitoneum volume were 166 mL between T2 and T3 (95% CI, 5 - 327 mL; p = 0.044) and 108 mL between T1 and T2 (95% CI, -273 - 488 mL; p = 0.525). The pneumoperitoneum volume showed high inter-individual variability and no increase in three patients with a high volume at T1.

CONCLUSIONS

During laparoscopic surgery in the lateral decubitus position with standard pressure under sevoflurane anaesthesia, deep NMB did not increase the S-SP distance compared to moderate NMB. Moderate NMB increased the S-SP distance by a mean of 2.1 cm (15.2%) compared with no NMB. The mean pneumoperitoneum volume increased slightly from moderate to deep NMB, with high inter-individual variability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03287388.

A narrative review on the potential benefits and limitations of deep neuromuscular blockade

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular blockade was shown to improve surgical conditions. However, the risk of residual neuromuscular blockade upon extubation prevents anaesthesiologists from maintaining complete paralysis. For this reason, deep NMB is still underused in anaesthesia. This review focused on answering six questions revolving around the use of deep NMB versus moderate NMB.

METHODS

This was a non-exhaustive narrative review based on 6 selected relevant questions: does deep NMB 1) improve surgical conditions? 2) reduce surgical complications? 3) facilitate a reduction in intraoperative pneumoperitoneum pressure (PnP)? 4) does a reduction in intraoperative PnP impact clinical outcomes? 5) does the combination of deep NMB and lower PnP improve respiratory parameters? 6) improve OR efficiency or readmission rates?

RESULTS

This review highlights some of the key studies that have demonstrated potential benefits of deep NMB, but it also included reports showing no benefit, highlighting that the evidence is not unequivocal. Deep NMB does in fact improve surgical conditions, but whether this improvement translates into improved clinical outcomes is far from concluded. Indeed, there is an increased risk or residual curarisation, especially if patients are not monitored and reversed appropriately. The most important benefit of deep NMB may be the prevention of unacceptable surgical working conditions. The other potential major benefits are the reduction in PnP and reduction in pain. Deep NMB must be used with appropriate monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Deep NMB was associated with an improvement in surgical conditions, reduction in PnP, pain, and complications; but further research is needed to definitively prove this relationship.

[Deep neuromuscular blockade : Benefits and risks]

Neuromuscular blockade (TOF count = 0) can improve tracheal intubation and microlaryngeal surgery. It is also frequently used in many surgical fields including both nonlaparoscopic and laparoscopic surgery to improve surgical conditions and to prevent sudden muscle contractions. Currently there is a controversy regarding the need and the clinical benefits of deep neuromuscular blockade for different surgical procedures. Deep neuromuscular relaxation improves laparoscopic surgical space conditions only marginally when using low intra-abdominal pressure. There is no outcome-relevant advantage of low compared to higher intra-abdominal pressures, but worsen the surgical conditions. Postoperative, residual curarisation can be avoided by algorithm-based pharmacological reversing and quantitative neuromuscular monitoring.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494].

CONCLUSIONS

Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584.

FUNDING

Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.