SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Sugammadex and intraocular pressure: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElevated intraocular pressure (IOP) during emergence from general anesthesia may precipitate visual complications, particularly in patients with predisposing ocular conditions. Anticholinergics used with neostigmine for neuromuscular blockade reversal can transiently increase IOP, whereas sugammadex avoids anticholinergic use and may offer a safer ocular profile. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of sugammadex versus neostigmine-anticholinergic combinations on IOP after extubation.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to September 30, 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing sugammadex with neostigmine plus atropine in adult surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia, reporting IOP as an outcome. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed following standard methodological practices. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to evaluate the conclusiveness of findings. The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
resultsThree RCTs with a total of 156 patients were included. Compared with neostigmine-atropine, sugammadex was associated with significantly lower IOP at 1 min (mean difference [MD], - 3.95 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 5.75 to - 2.14; P < 0.001) and 5 min (MD, - 3.84 mmHg; 95% CI, - 5.01 to - 2.66; P < 0.001) after extubation. No statistically significant differences were observed at 2-10 min. Mean arterial pressure and heart rate were similar between groups. TSA confirmed conclusive evidence at 1 and 5 min.
conclusionSugammadex was associated with improved early post-extubation IOP control without hemodynamic compromise. However, the evidence is based on a small number of heterogeneous trials and limited to short-term postoperative measurements, and the findings should be interpreted with caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.