Efficacy and safety of sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent survey revealed that extensive off-label use of sugammadex in pediatric anesthesia deserved particular attention. The present study with trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to evaluate the effects of sugammadex for antagonizing neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in pediatric patients, and to investigate whether the findings achieved the required information size to draw conclusions. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from inception to April 2021. All randomized controlled trials used sugammadex as reversal agent in pediatric patients were enrolled. Time from NMB reversal to recovery of the train-of-four ratio (TOFr) to 0.9 and extubation time were considered as co-primary outcomes, and incidences of adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to rate the quality of evidences. RESULTS: Data from 18 studies involving 1,065 pediatric patients were acquired. The results revealed that use of sugammadex was associated with shorter duration from administration of reversal agents to TOFr > 0.9 (MD = -14.42, with 95% CI [-17.08, -11.75]) and shorter interval from reversal from NMB to extubation (MD = -13.98, with 95% CI [-16.70, -11.26]) compared to control groups. TSA also indicated that the current sample sizes were sufficient with unnecessary further trials. Analysis of secondary outcomes indicated that administration of sugammadex was associated with less incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), bradycardia, and dry mouth compared to control groups. CONCLUSION: Considering of satisfactory and rapid neuromuscular blockade reversal with low incidences of adverse events, sugammadex might be considered as the preferred option for children in clinical anesthesia practice compared to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. However, overall low-quality evidences in present study rated by GRADE system indicated that superiority of sugammadex employed in pediatric patients needs to be confirmed by more studies with high quality and large sample size in future.

Efficacy of secondary vs primary closure techniques for the prevention of postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third molar extractions: A systematic review update and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether secondary closure (SC) or primary closure (PC) is better at preventing postoperative complications after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors sought randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of PC and SC on pain, swelling, trismus, infection, and bleeding after impacted mandibular third-molar extraction. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments were conducted independently and in duplicate. The reviewers pooled results across studies using a random-effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: This review identified 785 unique citations and included 40 trials. Compared with PC, SC was found to have trivial benefits for pain at day 7 and trismus within 1 week (moderate certainty). The incidence of infection and bleeding did not differ importantly between techniques (moderate certainty). However, SC is probably associated with less swelling on day 1 (standardized mean difference, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.73; moderate certainty) and day 3 (standardized mean difference, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.59; moderate certainty). There was very low certainty evidence for pain on days 1 and 3 and low certainty evidence for swelling on day 7. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians choosing between closure techniques should be aware that SC probably imparts an important benefit only for swelling at days 1 and 3. There seems to be a trivial difference between the techniques in other outcomes.