Next Article in Journal
Noninvasive and Convenient Screening of Metabolic Syndrome Using the Controlled Attenuation Parameter Technology: An Evaluation Based on Self-Paid Health Examination Participants
Next Article in Special Issue
Clear Cell Adenocarcinoma of the Urinary Bladder Is a Glycogen-Rich Tumor with Poorer Prognosis
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Pulse Arrival Time as an Indicator of Blood Pressure in a Large Surgical Biosignal Database: Recommendations for Developing Ubiquitous Blood Pressure Monitoring Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Younger Patients with Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer have Better Outcomes?
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Recovery from Anesthesia after Robotic-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Two Different Reversals of Neuromuscular Blockade

J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(11), 1774; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111774
by Claudia Claroni 1,*, Marco Covotta 1, Giulia Torregiani 1, Maria Elena Marcelli 1, Gabriele Tuderti 2, Giuseppe Simone 2, Alessandra Scotto di Uccio 3, Antonio Zinilli 4 and Ester Forastiere 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(11), 1774; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111774
Submission received: 22 September 2019 / Revised: 21 October 2019 / Accepted: 21 October 2019 / Published: 24 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Outcomes and Therapeutic Management of Bladder Cancer)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study. The authors would be advised to present their data more clearly: Figure 2 depicts the observations in regards to MMSt and OASS but the figure legend fails to explain the graphs. Similarly, the result section only peripherally touches on a description of these results which are among the key findings of the study.

Otherwise the design is sound and well-executed and the Discusion is well-written warranting publication in JCM.

Author Response

This is an interesting study.

The authors would be advised to present their data more clearly: Figure 2 depicts the observations in regards to MMSt and OASS but the figure legend fails to explain the graphs. Similarly, the result section only peripherally touches on a description of these results which are among the key findings of the study.

Thank you for this suggestion. We added observations in Results section and clarified the figure 2 legend.

Reviewer 2 Report

In their randomized trial, the authors aimed at comparing the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving sugammadex (S) versus neostigmine (N) after robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer (BC). A total of 109 patients were enrolled. The incidence of early PONV was lower in the S group but not statistically significant (S group 25.9% vs N group 29%; p=0.711). On the other hand, The Mini-Mental State test mean value was higher in the S group. Overall, it is a well conducted study with precise methodology.

The following comments are made:

Even if sample size analysis was correctly assessed in the trial protocol, the pre-assessed expected difference of 22% of PONV between these two groups may represent a flaw of the study not because the sample was by itself incorrect, but because the expected difference was overestimated. Could the authors provide further evidence from previous literature supporting the expected difference in PONV defined in the trial protocol?

Do the authors have data on adverse event rates between the two groups?

Author Response

Even if sample size analysis was correctly assessed in the trial protocol, the pre-assessed expected difference of 22% of PONV between these two groups may represent a flaw of the study not because the sample was by itself incorrect, but because the expected difference was overestimated. Could the authors provide further evidence from previous literature supporting the expected difference in PONV defined in the trial protocol?

Thanks for this interesting observation. As explained in the text we assessed the expected difference of 20% of PONV between the groups based on data from our previous experience in the same operative setting; however,  according to your advice, we added in the text some studies supporting this expected difference [ref. 13,14]

Back to TopTop