Evaluating Outcomes of Sugammadex Administration: Robotic Surgery Recovery Implications

dc.contributor.advisorSmith, Todd
dc.contributor.advisorMoore, Sean
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Howard
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Alabama Tuscaloosa
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are frequently combined with robotic surgery in order to provide safe, efficient, high quality patient care. Previous research has shown that the use of sugammadex for reversal of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) after general anesthesia for minimally invasive robotic surgery prevents many complications. This study will compare the efficacy of neostigmine reversal, sugammadex reversal, no pharmacological reversal or both reversal agents for patients following minimally invasive robotic surgery. Methodology: 562 patients at the Promedica Toledo Hospital (PTH) undergoing robotic surgery were selected randomly based on inclusion criteria to see if sugammadex provided an enhanced recovery. Patients having robotic surgery from May 2020 to May 2021 were divided into four groups by type of reversal drug: sugammadex, neostigmine, no reversal or both reversals. Using a chi-square goodness of fit test, we determined if there were significant differences between the patients in each of the four groups during the post-anesthesia recovery period as related to post_x0002_operative nausea and vomiting, time in PACU, pulmonary complications and unplanned admission for pulmonary complications. Results: A total of 562 cases were included in our analyses. No statistical significance was found across the four independent variables. However, we found clinical significance in a 15.78-minute mean reduction in PACU time for the sugammadex group when compared to the neostigmine group. Clinical significance was also indicated in the neostigmine group as 58.5% of those patients required a rescue dose of sugammadex to prevent complications of residual NMB. Discussion: For the reversal of NMB, the cost of sugammadex is higher than neostigmine. However, this additional costs of sugammadex could be offset by improved outcomes and potentially lead to financial healthcare savings. Also, quality outcome indicators could be more effectively met through an ERAS protocol combining minimally invasive surgery and sugammadex.en_US
dc.subjectNeuromuscular blockade
dc.subjectNausea and vomiting
dc.subjectRobotic surgery
dc.subjectPulmonary complications
dc.subjectEnhanced recovery after surgery
dc.titleEvaluating Outcomes of Sugammadex Administration: Robotic Surgery Recovery Implicationsen_US
dc.typeCapstone project
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
413.69 KB
Adobe Portable Document Format