Sir,An original article by Goyal et al. supporting tracheal extubation without reversing neuromuscular block made very interesting reading.[1] Earlier, some authors have been in favour of this concept using atracurium; however, with increasing evidence against this practice, use of reversal agent should be routine.[2] The authors attempted to establish that with close neuromuscular monitoring after rocuronium, adequate recovery from paralysis may be ensured without anticholinesterases. However, the evidence was not strong enough to state so, as the authors have not specified average duration of surgery (though procedures were supposed to last <2 h), total amount of rocuronium used, as well as time elapsed since the last dose. They solely relied upon clinical tests to assess recovery from paralysis before extubation in group which received reversal agent. It would have been better if the adequacy of recovery was verified by objective criteria in non-exposed group and compared with the other. Furthermore, in neuromuscular transmission (NMT) group, time to extubation was defined differently, that is, time from end of the surgery to reach a train-of-four ratio of 0.9 and not actual time to extubation, as patients were sedated with sevoflurane. Nine patients received reversal agent among NMT group, and they were excluded from analysis without reason! If reversal agent was used due to inadequate recovery, then it simply justifies use of the same for hastening or completion of recovery.Of the surrogate measures used, postoperative pneumonia (POP) is rare and may appear later than observation period of 2 days employed here.[3] Interestingly, the incidence of POP is none according to the text and two in one group as shown in Table 3.[1] Further, authors aspired to assess adequacy of muscle relaxation for intubation and for the maintenance of intraoperative relaxation using neuromuscular monitoring, outcomes of which are not reported.Finally, the current work is only pertaining to rocuronium, which already has a well-established reversal agent devoid of side effects attributable to neostigmine; hence, there should not be any hesitation in using the same. In the light of evidence for the significant presence of residual neuromuscular weakness in the postoperative period even with the use of reversal agent, how far we are justified in drawing conclusions with this kind of work?[4]