Key result
Deep neuromuscular blockade did not significantly reduce intraoperative requests for additional relaxation compared to moderate blockade during minimally invasive hip arthroplasty (RR 1.22, p=0.62).
Why the study?
Descriptions of minimally invasive hip replacement techniques specify the need for excellent relaxation, but the optimal degree of neuromuscular blockade required has not been studied.
Does deep neuromuscular blockade improve operating conditions in patients undergoing minimally invasive anterolateral total hip replacement?
RCT (n=116)
Single-blind
1:1 using a computer generated randomization code
No
Does deep neuromuscular blockade improve operating conditions in patients undergoing minimally invasive anterolateral total hip replacement?
Deep neuromuscular blockade does not significantly improve operative conditions or reduce operative time compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade during minimally invasive anterolateral total hip arthroplasty.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No advantage to deep neuromuscular blockade; challenges routine deepening of relaxation in minimally invasive hip arthroplasty.
Background Neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is thought to improve operative conditions during certain procedures. Published descriptions of minimally invasive hip replacement techniques specify the need for "excellent relaxation", however, the optimal degree of NMB required for such cases has not been studied. We performed a randomized, single-blind study comparing the effect of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade on surgical conditions and operating time during minimally invasive anterolateral hip replacement. Vecuronium was administered to maintain moderate NMB (train-of-four count of 1-2) or deep NMB (train-of-four count of 0, post-tetanic count of 1-2). Methods In this study, 116 patients were randomized to receive moderate or deep neuromuscular blockade; depth of blockade was monitored using acceleromyography. The primary outcome was the number of requests from the surgeon for additional blockade intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative times and assessment of the operative conditions by the surgeon utilizing the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale. Results Cases with additional requests for blockade did not differ between the deep and moderate NMB groups (11/58, 19.0% vs 8/58, 13.8%); relative risk, 1.22 (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.70-2.15), p=0.62. Neither time from incision to prosthesis reduction (33.8±1.2 min vs. 32.6 ±1.2 min; difference in geometric mean, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04] minutes, p=0.33), nor the surgeon's assessment of operative conditions (p=0.88), differed between the deep or moderate NMB groups, respectively. Conclusions Deep NMB did not produce significantly improved operative conditions compared with moderate NMB. Routine use of deep NMB during minimally invasive anterolateral hip arthroplasty is not supported by this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curry et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Minimally invasive anterolateral total hip replacement (n=116). Deep neuromuscular blockade vs. Moderate neuromuscular blockade (TOF count 1-2) was evaluated on Number of requests from the surgeon for additional blockade intraoperatively (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.70-2.15, p=0.62). Deep neuromuscular blockade did not significantly reduce intraoperative requests for additional relaxation compared to moderate blockade during minimally invasive hip arthroplasty (RR 1.22, p=0.62).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: