Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Effect of neuromuscular blockade reversal strategy on gastrointestinal recovery following abdominal wall reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEvaluate the impact of sugammadex on gastrointestinal recovery following complex AWR.
methodsThis single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial randomized 184 patients undergoing open retromuscular AWR to receive either sugammadex or neostigmine/glycopyrrolate for neuromuscular blockade reversal per drug packaging protocol. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery (GI-2), defined as tolerance of solid food and first bowel movement and univariate and multivariate analysis was used to compare sugammadex and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate cohorts. Secondary outcomes included incidence of POI, hospital length of stay, and opioid consumption among our two cohorts.
resultsThe final analysis included 177 patients (88 sugammadex, 89 neostigmine/glycopyrrolate). Median time to GI-2 recovery was similar between groups (89 vs. 87 h, Wilcoxon rank-sum p = 0.637). No significant differences were observed in POI incidence (21% vs. 25%, p = 0.52) or length of stay (5 vs. 4 days, p = 0.90). Multivariable analysis confirmed sugammadex did not significantly affect time to GI-2 recovery (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69-1.32, p = 0.79). Independent predictors of delayed recovery included POI development and greater opioid consumption.
conclusionsSugammadex did not result in faster return to gastrointestinal function when compared with neostigmine/glycopyrrolate when used for neuromuscular blockade reversal. Thus, avoidance of neostigmine/glycopyrrolate did not reduce POI incidence or hospital length of stay in patients undergoing complex AWR.
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.