Background. The optimal dose and concentration of analgesic efficacy of ropivacaine (RPV) and bupivacaine (BPV) for postoperative pain relief in paediatric abdominal surgery patients is still unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis compared the efficacy of these analgesics, their administered modes (ultrasound-guided RSB versus LAI) for postoperative pain relief, and side effects. Methods. Three databases, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were exhaustively searched with predefined keywords. Eight randomized clinical trials and retrospective studies were selected. Analgesic effect, postoperative pain score, level of side effect, applied dose, and concentration of drug were analysed. Results. Drug dose ranged from 0.5–2.5 mL/kg of 0.2 to 0.5% concentrations. Male participant for RSB and LAI treatment groups varied from 40–62% and 25–83%, respectively. Mean age of RSB and LAI groups ranged from 3.8–11.65 years and 4.3–11.27 years, respectively. Our meta-analysis revealed that RSB could reduce total opioid use postoperatively (WMD = −0.02, 95% CI: −0.02, −0.02), with I² value of 15%. We found that the RPV (0.25%, 2.5 ml/kg) was optimal in suppressing the pain. Its lower concentration (0.2%) was ineffective, whereas higher one (0.375%) seems to increase risk of systemic toxicity. Similarly, BPV (0.25%, 2.5 mg/kg) efficaciously reduced the pain score, while its lower concentration was ineffective. The combined postoperative pain score in the RPV-treated group was found to be significantly reduced ( ) with I² value of 85% indicating high heterogeneity. Conclusion. Both RPV and BPV were significantly effective in reducing postoperative pain score. It appears that RSB could be a preferred choice to deliver analgesia, due to reduced opiate dose requirement and improved clinical safety without significant postoperative adverse events.

Sugammadex has several pharmacological advantages over neostigmine, including faster reversal of neuromuscular blockade and fewer adverse effects. However, the economic impact of sugammadex remains controversial due to the considerable heterogeneity of study designs and clinical settings in previous studies. In a post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, we evaluated patients who underwent elective surgeries and general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation in a medical center in Taiwan between March 2020 and August 2020. Patients were divided into either the sugammadex or neostigmine group based on the neuromuscular blocking drug used. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline patient characteristics between the two groups. The patient’s recovery from anesthesia and the putative cost-effectiveness of sugammadex versus neostigmine was assessed. Derived cost-effectiveness using personnel costs in the operating room and the post-anesthesia care unit was estimated using multiple linear regression models. A total of 2587 and 1784 patients were included before and after matching, respectively. Time to endotracheal extubation was significantly shorter in the sugammadex group (mean 6.0 ± standard deviation 5.3 min) compared with the neostigmine group (6.6 ± 6.3 min; p = 0.0032). In addition, the incidence of bradycardia was significantly lower in the sugammadex group (10.2%) compared with the neostigmine group (16.9%; p < 0.001). However, the total costs were significantly lower in the neostigmine group (50.6 ± 21.4 United States dollars) compared with the sugammadex group (212.0 ± 49.5 United States dollars). Despite improving postoperative recovery, the benefits of sugammadex did not outweigh its higher costs compared with neostigmine, possibly due to the low costs of labor in Taiwan’s healthcare system.

Background: Shared decision making using patient decision aids (PtDAs) was established over a decade ago, but few studies have evaluated its efficacy in Asian countries. We therefore evaluated the application of PtDAs in a decision conflict between two muscle relaxant reversal agents, neostigmine and sugammadex, and sequentially analyzed the regional differences and operating room turnover rates.Methods: This multicenter, outcome-assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial included 3,132 surgical patients from two medical centers admitted between March 2020 and August 2020. The patients were randomly divided into the classical and PtDA groups for pre-anesthesia consultations. Their clinicodemographic characteristics were analyzed to identify variables influencing the choice of reversal agent. On the day of the pre-anesthesia consultation, the patients completed the four SURE scale (sure of myself, understand information, risk-benefit ratio, encouragement) screening items. The operating turnover rates were also evaluated using anesthesia records. Results: Compared with the classical group, the PtDA group felt more confident about receiving sufficient medical information (P < 0.001), felt better informed about the advantages and disadvantages of the medications (P < 0.001), exhibited a superior understanding of the benefits and risks of their options (P < 0.001), and felt surer about their choice (P < 0.001). Moreover, the PtDA group had a significantly greater tendency to choose sugammadex over neostigmine (P < 0.001). Conclusions: PtDA interventions in pre-anesthesia consultations provided surgical patients with clear knowledge and better support. PtDAs should be made available in other medical fields to enhance shared clinical decision-making.