ArticleJournal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
Sugammadex and blood loss during cervical spine fusion surgery.
Article in Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of sugammadex on coagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Sugammadex (SUG) has been associated with changes in coagulation studies. Most reports have concluded a lack of clinical significance based on surgical blood loss with SUG use at the end of surgery. Previous reports have not measured its use intraoperatively during ongoing blood loss. Our hypothesis was that the use of SUG intraoperatively may increase bleeding. Material and Methods: This was a single site retrospective study. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing a primary posterior cervical spine fusion, aged over 18 years, between July 2015 and June 2021. The primary outcomes compared were intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL) and postoperative drain output (PDO) between patients receiving SUG, neostigmine (NEO) and no NMB reversal agent. The objective was to determine if there was a difference in primary endpoints between patients administered SUG, NEO or no paralytic reversal agent. Primary endpoints were compared using analysis of variance with a Results: There was no difference in median EBL or PDO between groups. The use of SUG was not associated with an increase in odds for >500 milliliters (ml) of EBL. Increasing duration of surgery and chronic kidney disease were both associated with an increased risk for EBL >500 ml. Conclusion: Intraoperative use of SUG was not associated with increased bleeding. Any coagulation laboratory abnormalities previously noted did not appear to have an associated clinical significance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.