Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38683482›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024

Use of sugammadex in prevention of post-operative urinary retention in minimally invasive hernia surgery.

I Tsouknidas, S Perez, E Kunkel, C Tiko-Okoye, M E Buckley, J Y Gefen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

I TsouknidasDepartment of Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, 100 E Lancaster Ave, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA. tsouknidasioannis@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5958-0404
S PerezDepartment of Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, 100 E Lancaster Ave, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-7752-3259
E KunkelDivision of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego (UCSD), San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5763-005X
C Tiko-OkoyeDepartment of Acute Care, Trauma & Critical Care Surgery, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1880-8270
M E BuckleyMain Line Health Center for Population Health Research, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3140-6543
J Y GefenDepartment of Surgery, Lankenau Medical Center, 100 E Lancaster Ave, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.ORCID 0009-0005-1050-8857

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePost-operative urinary retention (POUR) is a known complication of hernia surgery. Minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR) is typically done under general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade (NMB), which is commonly reversed with an anticholinesterase inhibitor paired with an anticholinergic agent. Sugammadex is a unique NMB reversal agent that does not have to be paired with an anticholinergic. We sought to explore the role of sugammadex in reducing the rate of POUR following these procedures.

methodsData were collected retrospectively at a single institution between February 2016 and October 2019. We identified and studied patients who underwent minimally invasive IHR and received either sugammadex or neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for NMB reversal. The primary endpoint was POUR requiring bladder catheterization. Secondary endpoints included post-operative and 30-day readmissions.

results274 patients were included in this study (143 received neostigmine and glycopyrrolate, 131 sugammadex). The sugammadex patients were on average 5 years older than the neostigmine/ glycopyrrolate patients (63.2 vs 58.2, p = 0.003), and received less median intravenous fluids (IVF) (900 ml vs 1000 ml; p = 0.015). There was a significant difference in the rate of POUR between the sugammadex and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate patients (0.0% vs 8.4%, p ≤ 0.001). The difference remained significant after controlling for age and IVF. The odds of POUR for those who received neostigmine/glycopyrrolate were 25 × higher than the odds of those who received sugammadex.

conclusionThe results of this study reflect the protective role of sugammadex against POUR in minimally invasive IHR cases.

Indexed as

HerniorrhaphyNeostigminePostoperative ComplicationsSugammadexUrinary RetentionAgedFemaleGlycopyrrolateHernia, InguinalHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeuromuscular BlockadeRetrospective StudiesGlycopyrrolateNeostigmineSugammadexInguinal hernia repairMinimally invasive surgeryNeostigmine/glycopyrrolatePost-operative urinary retentionSugammadex

Identifiers

PMID38683482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.