Hostname: page-component-74d7c59bfc-km9vb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-02T07:25:26.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preoperative Management of Patients With Myasthenia Gravis: A Review of the Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2026

Salwa Alhammadi
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology & Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
Colin Chalk*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology & Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
*
Corresponding author: Colin Chalk; Email: colin.chalk@mcgill.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder characterized by fatigable weakness and increased perioperative vulnerability. Postoperative myasthenic crisis, defined as respiratory failure requiring prolonged ventilation or re-intubation, remains a feared complication after surgical procedures such as thymectomy. The efficacy of preoperative interventions such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasmapheresis remains uncertain. This review examines the evidence supporting risk stratification tools and immunomodulatory strategies to prevent postoperative myasthenic crisis. A comprehensive literature review was conducted focusing on studies evaluating the incidence, risk factors and preventive strategies for postoperative myasthenic crisis in MG patients. Particular emphasis was placed on clinical predictive models and randomized trials assessing preoperative IVIg and plasmapheresis. Recent data suggest the incidence of postoperative myasthenic crisis has declined to below 10%, largely due to advances in surgical technique and perioperative care. Established risk factors include bulbar involvement, reduced pulmonary function and prior crises. Risk prediction models such as the Leuzzi and Kanai scores offer clinically useful stratification. While older retrospective studies favored preoperative plasmapheresis, meta-analyses and randomized trials have yielded mixed results. Randomized trials of IVIg have shown no significant benefit in well-controlled patients, and both interventions carry notable risks and costs. Current evidence does not support the routine use of IVIg or plasmapheresis prior to surgery in all MG patients. A targeted, risk-based approach guided by validated predictive models is recommended to minimize unnecessary interventions and health care system costs.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉ

La prise en charge préopératoire de la myasthénie grave : résultats d’une revue documentaire de données probantes

La myasthénie grave (MG) est un trouble neuromusculaire auto-immun, qui se caractérise par de la fatigabilité, de la faiblesse et une vulnérabilité périopératoire accrue. La crise de myasthénie postopératoire, définie comme une insuffisance respiratoire suffisamment grave pour nécessiter une ventilation prolongée ou même une réintubation, est une complication redoutée après une intervention chirurgicale comme la thymectomie. L’efficacité des interventions préopératoires telles que l’administration intraveineuse d’immunoglobulines (IgIV) et la plasmaphérèse soulève des doutes. La revue documentaire ici décrite portera donc sur l’examen de données probantes à l’appui d’outils de stratification des risques et de stratégies d’immunomodulation dans le but de prévenir les crises de myasthénie postopératoires. Pour ce faire, l’équipe de recherche a procédé à un examen exhaustif de la documentation, et surtout des études portant sur l’évaluation de l’incidence des crises de myasthénie postopératoires ainsi que sur les facteurs de risque et les stratégies de prévention de cette complication chez les patients atteints de MG. Ont fait l’objet d’une attention particulière les modèles prévisionnels cliniques et les essais à répartition aléatoire qui visaient à évaluer l’administration d’IgIV et la plasmaphérèse en phase préopératoire. D’après des données récentes, l’incidence de la crise de myasthénie postopératoire serait passée à des valeurs inférieures à 10 %, grâce surtout aux progrès réalisés en matière de technique chirurgicale et de soins périopératoires. Les facteurs de risque bien connus comprennent une atteinte bulbaire, une réduction du fonctionnement pulmonaire et des antécédents de crise. Par ailleurs, des modèles prévisionnels de risque comme celui de Leuzzi et Kanai se montrent utiles au regard de la stratification clinique. Dans des études rétrospectives passées, on privilégiait la plasmaphérèse préopératoire, mais de nos jours les chercheurs arrivent à des résultats mitigés dans des méta-analyses et des essais cliniques à répartition aléatoire. Ainsi, aucun avantage appréciable n’a été relevé dans des essais cliniques comparatifs de qualité et à répartition aléatoire d’IgIV, sans compter que les deux interventions comportent des risques et des coûts élevés. À l’époque actuelle, les données probantes ne soutiennent plus le recours systématique aux IgIV ou à la plasmaphérèse en phase préopératoire chez les patients atteints de MG. On recommande plutôt une approche ciblée, fondée sur les risques d’après des modèles prévisionnels validés afin de réduire au minimum les interventions inutiles et les coûts pour les systèmes de soins de santé.

Information

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation

Introduction

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction, characterized by the presence of autoantibodies targeting components of the postsynaptic muscle membrane, resulting in fatigable muscle weakness. The preoperative management of patients with MG presents a clinical challenge, particularly in the context of major surgical interventions. Optimal preoperative preparation aims to reduce the risk of postoperative complications, including the possibility of a myasthenic crisis. Myasthenic crisis is generally defined as significant respiratory or bulbar muscle weakness necessitating intubation and mechanical ventilatory support. Crises can occur spontaneously due to the natural progression of the disease or be precipitated by external factors such as infections, specific medications or surgical procedures. Neurologists are often consulted as part of pre-operative planning in myasthenic patients. The aim of this paper is to review the available evidence (and its gaps) that supports current practice in pre-operative management of myasthenic patients. As will be seen, much of the data discussed in this paper is derived from the surgical literature, and may be relatively unfamiliar to neurologists.

What is the definition of postoperative myasthenic crisis or worsening?

Postoperative myasthenic crisis has been defined as either the need for mechanical ventilation support exceeding 48 hours, or re-intubation after extubation because of respiratory failure, in the absence of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications or cholinergic crisis. Reference Watanabe, Watanabe and Obama1 In patients receiving high doses of cholinesterase inhibitors, the presence of miosis, salivation, tearing, bronchorrhea and diaphoresis should prompt consideration of cholinergic crisis, although this is rarely seen in the modern era. In a multicenter study of 393 patients with MG who underwent thymectomy across six tertiary centers in Japan, no cases of cholinergic crisis were reported. Reference Kanai, Uzawa and Sato2 The authors attributed this absence to the routine discontinuation of pyridostigmine during the perioperative period.

What is the incidence and what are the risk factors for postoperative myasthenic worsening?

For almost a century, thymectomy, either for removal of thymoma or for treatment of MG, has been commonly performed in myasthenics, and essentially all the studies assessing the risk of post-operative crisis have been in this setting. In a study examining outcomes following thymectomy in patients with MG from January 1995 to December 2011, the incidence of postoperative myasthenic crisis was reported to be 12%. Reference Leuzzi, Meacci and Cusumano4 This figure reflects the immediate postoperative risk, as myasthenic crisis was specifically defined as respiratory failure due to neuromuscular weakness, occurring either in patients requiring prolonged intubation beyond 24 hours postoperatively or in those who were successfully extubated but subsequently required re-intubation or resuscitative support. Geng et al. reported a meta-analysis of 15 studies comprising 2,626 myasthenic patients undergoing thymectomy published between 2004 and 2017. The reported incidence of postoperative myasthenic crisis ranged from 6.2% to 30.3%. Reference Geng, Zhang and Wang3 At least some of this variability in reported incidence is likely due to different definitions of postoperative myasthenic crisis, with some studies characterizing it as a crisis occurring within 7 days following thymectomy, while others extended the timeframe to 30 days postoperatively or longer. Reference Geng, Zhang and Wang3

In recent years, the incidence of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy appears to have declined. While the shift toward minimally invasive techniques, such as video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, is often credited for the observed decline in postoperative myasthenic crisis, Reference Gritti, Sgarzi and Carrara6Reference Huang, Su, Zhang, Guo and Wang8 a single-center study reported by Xue et al. revealed a 10% postoperative myasthenic crisis rate in 127 thymoma patients, two-thirds of whom underwent a transsternal thoracotomy. Reference Xue, Wang and Dong9 This finding underscores the multifactorial nature of the decline, highlighting the likely contributions of improved medical management and meticulous patient selection, in addition to surgical technique. Overall, recent studies estimate the current incidence of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy to be below 10%. Reference Kanai, Uzawa and Sato2,Reference Xue, Wang and Dong9,Reference Kadota, Horio and Mori10

Identifying patients at particular risk of postoperative crisis has been an objective of several studies. A history of prior myasthenic crises and the presence of preoperative bulbar symptoms appear to be independent risk factors for developing myasthenic crisis after thymectomy. Reference Kanai, Uzawa and Sato2,Reference Geng, Zhang and Wang3,Reference Liu, Liu, Zhang, Li and Qi7,Reference Nam, Lee and Kim11 Additionally, preoperative Osserman stages, Reference Watanabe, Watanabe and Obama1,Reference Geng, Zhang and Wang3,Reference Liu, Liu, Zhang, Li and Qi7,Reference Xue, Wang and Dong9,Reference Nam, Lee and Kim11,Reference Scheriau, Weng and Lassnigg12 preoperative pulmonary function Reference Kanai, Uzawa and Sato2,Reference Liu, Liu, Zhang, Li and Qi7,Reference Nam, Lee and Kim11 and higher preoperative pyridostigmine dosages Reference Kanai, Uzawa and Sato2,Reference Geng, Zhang and Wang3,Reference Liu, Liu, Zhang, Li and Qi7 have been associated with increased risk of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy. In the study by Xue et al of 127 myasthenic patients who underwent thymectomy for thymoma, the risk of postoperative myasthenic crisis was higher in patients with WHO type B2-B3 histopathology. Reference Xue, Wang and Dong9 However, the overall frequency of crisis in these 127 patients was 10%, suggesting that thymoma per se is probably not an important risk factor for postoperative crisis.

Some studies have indicated an association between high anti-AChR antibody titers (>100 nmol/L) and increased risk of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy. Reference Watanabe, Watanabe and Obama1,Reference Liu, Liu, Zhang, Li and Qi7 However, this finding has not been consistently replicated, and is difficult to reconcile with the generally accepted view that AChR antibody titers are not correlated with disease severity in myasthenics.

The risk factors for postoperative myasthenic crisis after thymectomy are summarized in Table 1. Note that the incidence of and risk factors for postoperative crisis following other types of surgery have been little studied and thus remain unknown.

Table 1. Risk factors for postoperative myasthenic crisis

To stratify perioperative risk, several predictive models have been developed based on preoperative clinical severity, bulbar involvement, pulmonary function and serologic markers. Leuzzi et al. proposed a predictive model based on a cohort of 196 patients who underwent thymectomy between 1995 and 2011. Multivariate logistic regression identified Osserman stage, body mass index greater than 28, disease duration greater than two years and the need for pulmonary resection as independent predictors of postoperative myasthenic crisis. Based on these variables, a scoring system was developed, stratifying patients into four risk groups with progressively higher rates of postoperative respiratory failure (6%, 10%, 25% and 50%, respectively).

Kanai et al. subsequently introduced a clinical predictive score derived from a cohort of 393 patients, divided into derivation and validation groups. Their model incorporated three preoperative variables: reduced forced vital capacity or vital capacity (<80%), disease duration of less than three months and the presence of bulbar weakness immediately prior to thymectomy (Table 2).

Table 2. Kanai’s postoperative myasthenic crisis predictive score

This clinical score demonstrated excellent discriminative ability for predicting postoperative myasthenic crisis in both the derivation and validation cohorts. Notably, the scoring model achieved a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 83.3%, suggesting superior predictive performance compared to the Leuzzi score, which had a sensitivity of 36.8% and a specificity of 93.8%.

An important observation from the Kanai study was the association between short disease duration and increased risk of postoperative myasthenic crisis, contrary to earlier findings that implicated longer disease duration. Reference Leuzzi, Meacci and Cusumano4 A short disease duration was postulated to reflect either a rapidly progressive disease course or inadequate therapeutic control prior to thymectomy. In addition, the Kanai study cohort differed significantly from previous reports, with 66.1% of patients undergoing thymectomy within one year of diagnosis, compared to only 29% in earlier studies. The Kanai score demonstrated a high negative predictive value: when the score was low (<3 points), post-operative crisis was very unlikely. Although the positive predictive value was modest, the probability of postoperative myasthenic crisis increased proportionally with higher scores. Although these models provide a structured framework for perioperative risk estimation, their applicability across diverse patient populations and surgical settings remains to be validated in larger prospective studies.

What preoperative treatments to reduce the risk of postoperative deterioration in myasthenics are available, and what is the evidence for their efficacy?

The preoperative evaluation and management of MG patients aim to minimize postoperative complications. The process generally includes comprehensive anesthesia and neurological assessments, pulmonary function testing and, in selected cases, preoperative immunomodulatory therapy with either plasmapheresis or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). The use of preoperative plasmapheresis or IVIg, particularly in patients with bulbar dysfunction, was recommended by Juel Reference Juel13 and an international consensus group guideline published in 2016. Reference Sanders, Wolfe and Benatar14 The rationale for using preoperative immunotherapy is not difficult to understand, but is there evidence that it is effective?

Plasmapheresis: Given the possibility of myasthenic crisis being precipitated by surgery, the routine use of plasmapheresis prior to thymectomy in patients with generalized symptoms has been practiced for decades. However, the evidence supporting this practice is mixed. One favorable study involved a series of 51 patients undergoing thymectomy, in which Nagayasu et al. reported that none of the 19 patients who received preoperative plasmapheresis developed a crisis within 30 days of surgery, compared with 5 of 32 patients who did not undergo plasmapheresis. Reference Nagayasu, Yamayoshi and Matsumoto15 Although the baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable, including age, sex, disease duration, Osserman classification (IIA/IIB) and preoperative medication use, the study was a retrospective analysis conducted between January 1980 and December 1997. In addition, plasmapheresis was selectively administered for preoperative stabilization, except in cases where it was contraindicated or declined by the patient, further limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding its efficacy.

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Reis et al. evaluated the clinical benefits of preoperative plasmapheresis in patients with MG undergoing thymectomy. Reference Reis, Cataneo and Cataneo16 Of 317 studies initially identified, seven studies involving 360 patients were included in the final analysis, including two randomized controlled trials and five retrospective studies. Five studies involving 243 patients assessed the incidence of postoperative myasthenic crisis and found no statistically significant reduction with preoperative plasmapheresis. In a subgroup analysis based on disease severity, plasmapheresis did not reduce postoperative myasthenic crisis in patients with milder disease (Osserman II), but was associated with a reduced risk in patients with more symptomatic disease (Osserman III and IV). In addition, preoperative plasmapheresis was associated with increased perioperative bleeding. The authors judged the overall quality of evidence to be low, due to the predominance of retrospective designs, variability in patient selection and treatment protocols.

Although the benefit of preoperative plasmapheresis in reducing postoperative myasthenic crisis remains debated, some evidence suggests that it may also shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Reference d’Empaire, Hoaglin, Perlo and Pontoppidan17Reference Kamel and Essa18 Ultimately, the literature remains inconclusive regarding the routine use of preoperative plasmapheresis in MG patients.

IVIg: The clinical efficacy of IVIg has been well established in the management of worsening myasthenic symptoms Reference Zinman, Ng and Bril19 and is considered comparable to plasmapheresis in the treatment of myasthenic crisis. Reference Gajdos, Chevret, Clair, Tranchant and Chastang20 Several studies have investigated IVIg’s value in preventing postoperative crisis, mostly using plasmapheresis as a comparator. A retrospective study by Jensen and Bril compared the efficacy of IVIg and plasmapheresis as preoperative therapy in 105 patients with MG undergoing thymectomy between 2001 and 2006. Reference Jensen and Bril21 Nine patients received IVIg and 26 underwent plasmapheresis; the remaining 70 patients were judged to not need preoperative immunotherapy. Both IVIg and plasmapheresis achieved comparable outcomes, with approximately a one-grade improvement in Osserman classification at the first post-operative clinic visit in each group. Although they did not report data on postoperative myasthenic crisis or reintubation rates, both groups had a short hospital stay of 2–3 days, implying that neither crisis nor reintubation occurred.

In another study, Pérez-Nellar et al. compared IVIg and plasmapheresis as preoperative therapies in patients with MG undergoing thymectomy. Reference Pérez Nellar, Domínguez and Llorens-Figueroa22 Among 33 patients treated with IVIg and 38 historical controls receiving plasmapheresis, no statistically significant differences were observed in duration of intubation or length of ICU stay, and no myasthenic crises occurred in either group. Huang et al. reported uneventful postoperative outcomes in six generalized MG patients who received high-dose intravenous IVIg before thymectomy, with successful extubation within 8 hours. Reference Huang, Hsu, Kao, Huang and Huang23 Neither of these studies included control patients who received neither plasmapheresis or IVIg, limiting interpretation.

There have been two randomized controlled trials evaluating the preoperative use of IVIg. Alipour-Faz et al. conducted a non-blinded randomized trial of 24 patients undergoing thymectomy, whose myasthenia was stable. Participants were assigned to receive either high-dose IVIg (1 g/kg/day for two days) or five sessions of plasmapheresis prior to surgery. Reference Alipour-Faz, Shojaei and Peyvandi24 The IVIg group had significantly shorter intubation periods; length of stay in ICU and hospital was similar in the two groups. Two patients in the plasmapheresis group had postoperative myasthenic crisis (not further defined) secondary to pneumonia. In contrast, Gamez et al. performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 47 MG patients undergoing various surgeries, including thymectomy. Reference Gamez, Salvadó and Carmona25 Patients were randomized to receive either IVIg (0.4 g/kg/day for five days) or placebo prior to surgery. The incidence of postoperative myasthenic crisis was low, with only one event occurring in the placebo group, and no significant differences were observed between groups in intubation time, recovery room duration, postoperative complications or hospital length of stay. The authors concluded that routine preoperative IVIg is not necessary for well-controlled MG patients (preoperative quantitative myasthenia gravis score<8 and preoperative forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted).

In addition to limited evidence, both plasmapheresis and IVIg have some risks and potential complications. Plasmapheresis is invasive, resource-intensive and can be associated with complications such as catheter-related infections, hypotension, bleeding disorders and citrate reactions. Reference Gajdos, Chevret, Clair, Tranchant and Chastang20,Reference Ghimire, Kunwar and Aryal26 IVIg, while less invasive, carries risks, including thromboembolic events, fever or chills, aseptic meningitis and infusion-related reactions, and may be contraindicated in patients with IgA deficiency. Reference Ghimire, Kunwar and Aryal26,Reference Dalakas27 Moreover, both treatments are relatively costly and may not be readily available in all healthcare settings.

Conclusion

Postoperative myasthenic crisis remains an important issue in the management of myasthenia gravis, although its incidence has declined significantly in recent years, with most contemporary series reporting rates below 10%. This decline is likely due to improved perioperative care, meticulous patient selection and increased use of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Several validated predictive tools, such as the Leuzzi and Kanai scores, are available to estimate perioperative risk based on disease severity, bulbar involvement, pulmonary function and serologic markers. These models offer a structured approach to risk stratification and can help identify patients who may benefit from additional preoperative interventions.

Although there is a good theoretical rationale for preoperative plasmapheresis or IVIg, current evidence (albeit flawed) does not support their routine use. In addition, when the cost, logistical challenges and potential complications are considered, we conclude that routine preoperative plasmapheresis or IVIg should be discouraged. Nevertheless, there are likely patients in whom preoperative plasmapheresis or IVIg is advisable. Published expert opinion recommends these treatments for patients with “bulbar or generalized weakness” Reference Juel13 or with “significant bulbar dysfunction.” Reference Sanders, Wolfe and Benatar14 This expert opinion seems reasonable, but we advocate a more evidence-based approach, and instead recommend that high-risk patients be identified using the validated risk scores described above, and that preoperative plasmapheresis or IVIg be reserved for such patients. A randomized controlled trial of this approach would be ideal but is likely impractical; prospective validation using a multicentre registry would be feasible.

Author contributions

SA: literature search, initial and final drafts of manuscript.

CC: concept of project, initial and final drafts of manuscript.

Funding statement

This work did not receive funding support.

Competing interests

SA and CC report no conflicts of interest or competing interests.

References

Watanabe, A, Watanabe, T, Obama, T, et al. Prognostic factors for myasthenic crisis after transsternal thymectomy in patients with myasthenia gravis. J Thor Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:868876. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.07.036.Google Scholar
Kanai, T, Uzawa, A, Sato, Y, et al. A clinical predictive score for postoperative myasthenic crisis. Ann Neurol. 2017;82:841849. DOI: 10.1002/ana.25087.Google Scholar
Geng, Y, Zhang, H, Wang, Y. Risk factors of myasthenia crisis after thymectomy among myasthenia gravis patients: a meta-analysis. Medicine. 2020;99:e18622. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018622.Google Scholar
Leuzzi, G, Meacci, E, Cusumano, G, et al. Thymectomy in myasthenia gravis: proposal for a predictive score of postoperative myasthenic crisis. Eur J Cardio-Thor Surg. 2014;45:e76e88. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt641.Google Scholar
Narayanaswami, P, Sanders, DB, Wolfe, G, et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: 2020 update. Neurology. 2020;96:114122. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000011124.Google Scholar
Gritti, P, Sgarzi, M, Carrara, B, et al. A standardized protocol for the perioperative management of myasthenia gravis patients: experience with 110 patients. Acta Anaes Scan. 2012;56:6675. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02564.x.Google Scholar
Liu, C, Liu, P, Zhang, XJ, Li, WQ, Qi, G. Assessment of the risks of a myasthenic crisis after thymectomy in patients with myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 studies. J Cardiothor Surg. 2020;15:270. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-020-01320-x.Google Scholar
Huang, Y, Su, L, Zhang, Y, Guo, J, Wang, C. Risk factors for postoperative myasthenic crisis after thymectomy in patients with myasthenia gravis. J Surg Res. 2021;262:15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.12.048.Google Scholar
Xue, L, Wang, L, Dong, J, et al. Risk factors of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy for thymoma patients with myasthenia gravis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:692697. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx163.Google Scholar
Kadota, Y, Horio, H, Mori, T, et al. Perioperative management in myasthenia gravis: republication of a systematic review and a proposal by the guideline committee of the Japanese Association for Chest Surgery 2014. Gen Thor Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:201215. DOI: 10.1007/s11748-015-0518-y.Google Scholar
Nam, TS, Lee, SH, Kim, BC, et al. Clinical characteristics and predictive factors of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy. J Clin Neurosci. 2011;18:11851188. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2011.01.011.Google Scholar
Scheriau, G, Weng, R, Lassnigg, A, et al. Perioperative management of patients with myasthenia gravis undergoing robotic-assisted thymectomy: a retrospective analysis and clinical evaluation. J Cardiothor Vasc Anesth. 2022;36:38063813. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.05.024.Google Scholar
Juel, VC. Myasthenia gravis: management of myasthenic crisis and perioperative care. Sem Neurology. 2004;24:7581. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-829595.Google Scholar
Sanders, DB, Wolfe, GI, Benatar, M, et al. International consensus guidance for management of myasthenia gravis: executive summary. Neurology. 2016;87:419425. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002790.Google Scholar
Nagayasu, T, Yamayoshi, T, Matsumoto, K, et al. Beneficial effects of plasmapheresis before thymectomy on the outcome in myasthenia gravis. Japanese J Thor Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;53:27. DOI: 10.1007/s11748-005-1001-y.Google Scholar
Reis, TA, Cataneo, DC, Cataneo, AJM. Clinical usefulness of pre-thymectomy plasmapheresis in patients with myasthenia gravis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Cardiovasc Thor Surg. 2019;29:867875. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivz186.Google Scholar
d’Empaire, G, Hoaglin, DC, Perlo, VP, Pontoppidan, H. Effect of pre-thymectomy plasma exchange on postoperative respiratory function in myasthenia gravis. J Thor Cardiovasc Surg. 1985;89:592596.Google Scholar
Kamel, A, Essa, M. Effectiveness of pre-thymectomy plasmapheresis on the short-term outcome of non-thymomatous generalized myasthenia gravis. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatr Neurosurg. 2009;46:161168.Google Scholar
Zinman, L, Ng, E, Bril, V. IV immunoglobulin in patients with myasthenia gravis: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2007;68:837841. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000256698.69121.45.Google Scholar
Gajdos, P, Chevret, S, Clair, B, Tranchant, C, Chastang, C, for the Myasthenia Gravis Clinical Study Group. Clinical trial of plasma exchange and high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin in myasthenia gravis. Ann Neurol. 1997;41:789796. DOI: 10.1002/ana.410410615.Google Scholar
Jensen, P, Bril, V. A comparison of the effectiveness of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange as preoperative therapy of myasthenia gravis. J Clin Neuromusc Dis. 2008;9:352355. DOI: 10.1097/CND.0b013e3181660807.Google Scholar
Pérez Nellar, J, Domínguez, AM, Llorens-Figueroa, JA, et al. Estudio comparativo entre inmunoglobulina intravenosa y plasmaféresis en el perioperatorio de la miastenia gravis [A comparative study of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis preoperatively in myasthenia]. Rev Neurolog. 2001;33:413416.Google Scholar
Huang, CS, Hsu, HS, Kao, KP, Huang, MH, Huang, BS. Intravenous immunoglobulin in the preparation of thymectomy for myasthenia gravis. Acta Neurol Scan. 2003;108:136138. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2003.00131.x.Google Scholar
Alipour-Faz, A, Shojaei, M, Peyvandi, H, et al. A comparison between IVIG and plasma exchange as preparations before thymectomy in myasthenia gravis patients. Acta Neurol Belg. 2017;117:245249. DOI: 10.1007/s13760-016-0689-z.Google Scholar
Gamez, J, Salvadó, M, Carmona, F, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin to prevent myasthenic crisis after thymectomy and other procedures can be omitted in patients with well-controlled myasthenia gravis. Ther Adv Neurol Dis. 2019;12:e1756286419864497. DOI: 10.1177/1756286419864497.Google Scholar
Ghimire, A, Kunwar, B, Aryal, B, et al. Assessing the comparative efficacy of plasmapheresis and intravenous immunoglobulin in myasthenia gravis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci. 2024;121:110. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2024.01.025.Google Scholar
Dalakas, MC. Intravenous immunoglobulin in autoimmune neuromuscular diseases. JAMA. 2004;291:2367–75. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.19.2367.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Risk factors for postoperative myasthenic crisis

Figure 1

Table 2. Kanai’s postoperative myasthenic crisis predictive score