| Title |
The use of sugammadex for bariatric surgery: analysis of recovery time from neuromuscular blockade and possible economic impact
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s109951 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edoardo De Robertis, Geremia Zito Marinosci, Giovanni Marco Romano, Ornella Piazza, Michele Iannuzzi, Fabrizio Cirillo, Stefania De Simone, Giuseppe Servillo |
| Abstract |
Neuromuscular block (NMB) monitoring and use of reversal agents accelerate the recovery time and improve the workflow in the operating room. We aimed to compare recovery times after sugammadex or neostigmine administration, and estimate the time spent in operating theater and the possible economic impact of a faster recovery, in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. We conducted a retrospective study that analyzed data from records of morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 kg/m(2)) undergoing elective laparoscopic bariatric surgery in which sugammadex or neostigmine were used to reverse NMB. Patients were divided in two groups: group 1 (sugammadex group [SUG]) received rocuronium and sugammadex for reversal and group 2 (neostigmine group [NEO]) received either rocuronium or cisatracurium and neostigmine. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation). Compared with NEO, SUG group showed shorter times to achieve train-of-four ratio of 0.9 (P<0.05) and an Aldrete score of 10 (P<0.05), a higher cost (€146.7 vs €3.6 [P<0.05]), plus a remarkable less duration of operating theater occupancy (P<0.05). Sugammadex cost accounted for 2.58% of the total cost per surgery, while neostigmine cost accounted for 0.06%. Total time saved in SUG group was 19.4 hours, which could be used to perform 12 extra laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies. Reversal from NMB was significantly faster with sugammadex than with neostigmine. Although sugammadex was substantially more expensive, duration of operating theater occupancy was reduced with potentially workflow increase or personnel reduced cost. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 47 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 19% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 7 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 52% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,234,512
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#114
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,466
of 353,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.