Sugammadex: economic and practical considerations

G. Ortais,P. Ariés,B. Nguyen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13862
IF: 12.893
2017-06-01
Anaesthesia
Abstract:tematic reviews. Some discrepancies would not necessarily affect the outcome of the review, for example, not including the words ‘systematic review’ in the title. Others, however, are important. The only mention of their assessment of risk of bias in individual articles was a sentence in the discussion ‘limitations of this study include the individual weaknesses of any of the studies which were reviewed’. Furthermore, much of the evidence included for analysis involved experimental studies of phantom patients, where dosimeters were attached to an anaesthetic machine 1.5 m from the source. While we accept that these studies show no significant exposure to radiation at this distance, they are unrealistic in that they do not simulate real life; our work involves moving around many parts of the operating theatre at varying distances from the radiation source, often coming closer to the source, for example, to inject drugs, or occasionally to perform intravenous cannulation or airway manipulation. The discussion acknowledges that it was ‘hard to know if that is the exact distance the provider was located for all of the exposures’ in studies that attached dosimeters to subjects; we suggest that this is, in fact, a strength of these studies, as they are more reflective of radiation exposure in real life. At our institution, we are governed by legislation regarding protective lead gear in the operating theatre to prevent radiation exposure, but we agree that it is important to review the evidence regarding the necessity of this gear. While the authors’ sincerity and good intentions in writing this article are obvious, we would suggest caution in the interpretation of their findings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?