Trial reportObesity surgery2026
Deep Neuromuscular Blockade in Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB): A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Obesity surgery, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOptimal visibility during Laparoscopic One-Anastomosis Gastric Bypass (OAGB) is challenging. This study compares moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) for surgical field quality, respiratory and hemodynamic outcomes, atelectasis rates, pain, and bowel recovery.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial involved adults with severe obesity (ASA II/III) undergoing OAGB with general anesthesia. Patients were assigned to deep or moderate NMB, monitored by acceleromyography. Surgical workspace quality was measured using the Leiden Surgical Rating Scale. Collected intraoperative data included workspace, operative time, pulmonary mechanics, hemodynamics, and oxygenation; postoperative outcomes covered pain scores, analgesic use, time to first flatus, complications, hospital stay, and atelectasis via chest CT.
resultsFifty-five patients were included (moderate: n = 28; deep: n = 27), with comparable baseline characteristics. NMB depth did not affect pulmonary mechanics. Deep NMB significantly improved intraoperative surgical field conditions (p < 0.001) and reduced operative time by approximately 10 min, with regression analysis confirming an 11.5 - minute reduction (p = 0.044). Hemodynamics and oxygenation were similar between groups. Patients in the deep NMB group reported lower postoperative pain scores, but comparable analgesic consumption. Length of hospital stay (p = 0.879), and incidence of atelectasis (p = 0.831) did not differ between groups. No association was found between BMI, NMB depth, and postoperative atelectasis.
conclusionsDeep NMB improves surgical conditions and shortens operative time for laparoscopic OAGB at standard pneumoperitoneum pressure. While it reduced postoperative pain, fixed intra-abdominal pressure and opioid-based anesthesia may have limited assessment of other outcomes. Further studies using multimodal strategies are needed to assess its impact on recovery.
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.