Skip to main content
Log in

Sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative pulmonary complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Anesthesia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) requires particular surgical conditions, such as carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning, which may have adverse effects on the respiratory system. The effect of sugammadex on postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) is controversial. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of PPCs according to the type of neuromuscular blockade reversal agents in RALP.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed RALP patients. We compared the incidence of PPCs between patients receiving neostigmine (neostigmine group) and those receiving sugammadex (sugammadex group) as a neuromuscular blockade reversal agent. Propensity score-matched analysis was performed. Other postoperative outcomes, such as duration of hospital stays, major adverse cardiac events during hospital stays, and death during hospital stays, were also compared between the two groups.

Results

The incidence of PPCs was 28.9% (137/474) in RALP. The incidence of PPCs was significantly lower in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group (18.6% [44/237] vs. 39.2% [93/237], p < 0.001). The incidence of atelectasis was significantly lower in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group (18.6% vs. 39.2%, p < 0.001). The incidence of pneumonia was not significantly different between the sugammadex and neostigmine groups after RALP (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p > 0.999). Besides these, other postoperative outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The incidence of PPCs after RALP was significantly lower in patients receiving sugammadex than in those receiving neostigmine. These results can provide useful information on the appropriate selection of neuromuscular blockade reversal agents in RALP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Shariat SF, Stolzenburg JU, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Wilson TG. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012;62:431–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, Jung JH, Murphy D, Frydenberg M. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review. BJU Int. 2018;121:845–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kilic OF, Börgers A, Köhne W, Musch M, Kröpfl D, Groeben H. Effects of steep Trendelenburg position for robotic-assisted prostatectomies on intra- and extrathoracic airways in patients with or without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:70–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pienta KJ, Esper PS. Risk factors for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:793–803.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Yu J, Park JY, Kim DH, Kim S, Hwang JH, Seo H, Kim YK. Incidence and risk factors of pulmonary complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a retrospective observational analysis of 2208 patients at a large single center. J Clin Med. 2019;8.

  6. Choi E-S, Oh A-Y, In C-B, Ryu J-H, Jeon Y-T, Kim H-G. Effects of recruitment manoeuvre on perioperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomised single-blinded trial. PloS one. 2017;12:e0183311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Purdy R, Bevan DR, Donati F, Lichtor JL. Early reversal of rapacuronium with neostigmine. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:51–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sasaki N, Meyer MJ, Malviya SA, Stanislaus AB, MacDonald T, Doran ME, Igumenshcheva A, Hoang AH, Eikermann M. Effects of neostigmine reversal of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents on postoperative respiratory outcomes: a prospective study. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:959–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stair C, Fernandez-Bustamante A. Sugammadex, the first selective relaxant binding agent for neuromuscular block reversal. Drugs Today (Barc). 2012;48:405–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gijsenbergh F, Ramael S, Houwing N, van Iersel T. First human exposure of Org 25969, a novel agent to reverse the action of rocuronium bromide. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:695–703.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brueckmann B, Sasaki N, Grobara P, Li MK, Woo T, de Bie J, Maktabi M, Lee J, Kwo J, Pino R, Sabouri AS, McGovern F, Staehr-Rye AK, Eikermann M. Effects of sugammadex on incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade: a randomized, controlled study. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:743–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Geldner G, Niskanen M, Laurila P, Mizikov V, Hubler M, Beck G, Rietbergen H, Nicolayenko E. A randomised controlled trial comparing sugammadex and neostigmine at different depths of neuromuscular blockade in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:991–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Flockton EA, Mastronardi P, Hunter JM, Gomar C, Mirakhur RK, Aguilera L, Giunta FG, Meistelman C, Prins ME. Reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block with sugammadex is faster than reversal of cisatracurium-induced block with neostigmine. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:622–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kopman AF. Sugammadex: a revolutionary approach to neuromuscular antagonism. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:631–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kheterpal S, Vaughn MT, Dubovoy TZ, Shah NJ, Bash LD, Colquhoun DA, Shanks AM, Mathis MR, Soto RG, Bardia A, Bartels K, McCormick PJ, Schonberger RB, Saager L. Sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade and postoperative pulmonary complications (STRONGER): a multicenter matched cohort analysis. Anesthesiology. 2020;132:1371–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moon TS, Reznik S, Pak T, Jan K, Pruszynski J, Kim A, Smith KM, Lu R, Chen J, Gasanova I, Fox PE, Ogunnaike B. Sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: a randomized, double-blinded study of thoracic surgical patients evaluating hypoxic episodes in the early postoperative period. J Clin Anesth. 2020;64:109804.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirmeier E, Eriksson LI, Lewald H, Jonsson Fagerlund M, Hoeft A, Hollmann M, Meistelman C, Hunter JM, Ulm K, Blobner M. Post-anaesthesia pulmonary complications after use of muscle relaxants (POPULAR): a multicentre, prospective observational study. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:129–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alday E, Muñoz M, Planas A, Mata E, Alvarez C. Effects of neuromuscular block reversal with sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative respiratory outcomes after major abdominal surgery: a randomized-controlled trial. Canadian J Anesthesia. 2019;66:1328–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG, Lee S, Cho YM, Ahn H. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol. 2011;60:413–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jeong IG, Yoo S, Lee C, Kim M, You D, Song C, Park S, Hong JH, Ahn H, Kim CS. Obesity as a risk factor for unfavorable disease in men with low risk prostate cancer and its relationship with anatomical location of tumor. J Urol. 2017;198:71–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, Schultz D, Blank K, Broderick GA, Tomaszewski JE, Renshaw AA, Kaplan I, Beard CJ, Wein A. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 1998;280:969–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Abbott TEF, Fowler AJ, Pelosi P, Gama de Abreu M, Moller AM, Canet J, Creagh-Brown B, Mythen M, Gin T, Lalu MM, Futier E, Grocott MP, Schultz MJ, Pearse RM, St EPCG. A systematic review and consensus definitions for standardised end-points in perioperative medicine: pulmonary complications. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:1066–79.

  23. Jammer I, Wickboldt N, Sander M, Smith A, Schultz MJ, Pelosi P, Leva B, Rhodes A, Hoeft A, Walder B, Chew MS, Pearse RM. European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM); European Society of Anaesthesiology; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European Perioperative Clinical Outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2015;32:88–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, Anker S, Botker HE, Hert SD, Ford I, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, Gorenek B, Heyndrickx GR, Hoeft A, Huber K, Iung B, Kjeldsen KP, Longrois D, Luscher TF, Pierard L, Pocock S, Price S, Roffi M, Sirnes PA, Sousa-Uva M, Voudris V, Funck-Brentano C. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2383–431.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Awad H, Walker CM, Shaikh M, Dimitrova GT, Abaza R, O’Hara J. Anesthetic considerations for robotic prostatectomy: a review of the literature. J Clin Anesth. 2012;24:494–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fitzgerald SD, Andrus CH, Baudendistel LJ, Dahms TE, Kaminski DL. Hypercarbia during carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum. Am J Surg. 1992;163:186–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nicholson WT, Sprung J, Jankowski CJ. Sugammadex: a novel agent for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27:1181–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bulka CM, Terekhov MA, Martin BJ, Dmochowski RR, Hayes RM, Ehrenfeld JM. Nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents, reversal, and risk of postoperative pneumonia. Anesthesiology. 2016;125:647–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Greenberg SB, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual neuromuscular blockade and critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:130–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Franklin M, Marymont JH, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Postanesthesia care unit recovery times and neuromuscular blocking drugs: a prospective study of orthopedic surgical patients randomized to receive pancuronium or rocuronium. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:193–200.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Martinez-Ubieto J, Ortega-Lucea S, Pascual-Bellosta A, Arazo-Iglesias I, Gil-Bona J, Jimenez-Bernardó T, Muñoz-Rodriguez L. Prospective study of residual neuromuscular block and postoperative respiratory complications in patients reversed with neostigmine versus sugammadex. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:735–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Berg H, Roed J, Viby-Mogensen J, Mortensen CR, Engbaek J, Skovgaard LT, Krintel JJ. Residual neuromuscular block is a risk factor for postoperative pulmonary complications: a prospective, randomised, and blinded study of postoperative pulmonary complications after atracurium, vecuronium and pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:1095–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Karayiannakis AJ, Makri GG, Mantzioka A, Karousos D, Karatzas G. Postoperative pulmonary function after laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth. 1996;77:448–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cammu G, Schepens T, De Neve N, Wildemeersch D, Foubert L, Jorens PG. Diaphragmatic and intercostal electromyographic activity during neostigmine, sugammadex and neostigmine-sugammadex-enhanced recovery after neuromuscular blockade: a randomised controlled volunteer study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:8–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Togioka BM, Yanez D, Aziz MF, Higgins JR, Tekkali P, Treggiari MM. Randomised controlled trial of sugammadex or neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on the incidence of pulmonary complications in older adults undergoing prolonged surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124:553–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Young-Kug Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, J., Park, JY., Lee, Y. et al. Sugammadex versus neostigmine on postoperative pulmonary complications after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Anesth 35, 262–269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02910-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-021-02910-2

Navigation