An ergonomic assessment of using laterally-tilting operating room tables and friction reducing devices for patient lateral transfers.

Patient lateral transfers between two adjacent surfaces pose high musculoskeletal disorder risks for nurses and patient handlers. The purpose of this research was to examine the ergonomic benefits of utilizing the laterally-tilting function of operating room (OR) tables during such transfers - along with different friction-reducing devices (FRD). This method allows the patient to slide down to the adjacent surface as one nurse guides the transfer and another controls the OR table angle with a remote control. Sixteen nursing students and sixteen college students were recruited to act as nurses and patients, respectively. Two OR table angles were examined: flat and tilted. Three FRD conditions were considered: a standard blanket sheet, a plastic bag, and a slide board. Electromyography (EMG) activities were measured bilaterally from the posterior deltoids, upper trapezii, latissimus dorsi, and lumbar erector spinae muscles. The Borg-CR10 scale was used for participants to rate their perceived physical exertions. The efficiency of each method was measured using a stopwatch. Results showed that the tilted table technique completely replaced the physical efforts that would have been exerted by the pushing-nurse, in that muscle activation did not increase in the pulling-nurse. On the contrary, EMG activities of the pulling-nurse for most of the muscles significantly decreased (p < 0.05). The subjective Borg-ratings also favored the tilted table with significantly lower ratings. However, the tilted table required on average 7.22 s more than the flat table to complete the transfer (p < 0.05). The slide board and plastic bag were associated with significantly lower Borg-ratings and EMG activities for most muscles than blanket sheet, but they both were not significantly different from each other. However, they each required approximately 5 s more than the blanket sheet method to complete the patient transfer (p < 0.05). By switching from flat + blanket sheet to tilted + slide board, EMG activities in all muscles decreased in the range of 18.4-72.3%, and Borg-ratings decreased from about 4 (somewhat difficult) to 1 (very light). The findings of this study propose simple, readily available ergonomic interventions for performing patient lateral transfers that can have significant implications for nurses' wellbeing and efficiency.

Half dose sugammadex combined with neostigmine is non-inferior to full dose sugammadex for reversal of rocuronium-induced deep neuromuscular blockade: a cost-saving strategy.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex reverses the effect of rocuronium more rapidly and effectively than neostigmine, at all levels of neuromuscular blockade (NMB). However, its cost is prohibitive. The combination of half dose sugammadex with neostigmine would be non-inferior to full dose sugammadex for the reversal of deep NMB. This approach would reduce the cost of sugammadex while preserving its efficacy. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive sugammadex 4 mg/kg (Group S) or sugammadex 2 mg/kg with neostigmine 50 µg/kg and glycopyrrolate 10 µg/kg (Group NS) for reversal of rocuronium deep NMB. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who recovered to 90% Train of Four (TOF) ratio within 5 min. The non-inferiority margin was set at 10%. RESULTS: Twenty eight patients were enrolled in each group. The number of patients who reached 90% TOF ratio within 5 min was 27 out of 28 (96%) in group S versus 25 out of 28 (89%) in group NS by intention-to-treat (difference: 7%, 95% CI of the difference: -9% to 24%). The number of patients who reached 90% TOF ratio within 5 min was 26 out of 26 (100%) in group S versus 23 out of 25 (92%) in group NS by per-protocol (difference: 8%, 95% CI of the difference: -6% to 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex 2 mg/kg with neostigmine 50 µg/kg was at worst 9% and 6% less effective than sugammadex 4 mg/kg by intention-to-treat and by per-protocol analysis respectively. Hence, the combination is non-inferior to the recommended dose of sugammadex. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT 02375217 , registered on February 11, 2015.