Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

Background

Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil is frequently used to optimize intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), the exact effect of remimazolam on IONM remains unknown. Here, we compared the effects of propofol and remimazolam along with remifentanil on IONM during TIVA.

Methods

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, 64 patients requiring IONM during cervical spine surgery were administered either propofol (Group P) or remimazolam (Group R). The preoperative latencies of the somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEP; N20 for the median nerve and P37 for the tibial nerve) were measured. SEP latencies and amplitudes and motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were measured 30 min after anesthetic induction (T1), 30 min after surgical incision (T2), after laminectomy or discectomy (T3), immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (T4), and before surgical wound closure (T5). The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the N20 latency changes measured at T1 and preoperatively.

Results

The change in SEP latencies including N20 and P37 at T1 compared with preoperative time was not significantly different between Groups P and R. Except for the amplitude of the right abductor brevis, there was no significant group-by-time interaction effect for intraoperative MEP amplitudes or SEP latencies and amplitudes.

Conclusions

TIVA with remimazolam and remifentanil for cervical spine surgery yielded stable IONM, comparable to those observed with conventional TIVA with propofol and remifentanil. Further clinical trials are needed in other surgical contexts and with more diverse patient populations to determine the effects of remimazolam on IONM.

Keywords: Anesthesia, intravenous, Evoked potentials, motor, Evoked potentials, somatosensory, Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, Propofol, Remimazolam

Introduction

Intraoperative neurological injuries are rare but may have catastrophic consequences in cervical spine surgeries [1]. Early detection of iatrogenic neurological compromise during the procedure is essential to avoid neurological injury and can reportedly reduce the incidence of new postoperative neurological deficits from 3.7 to 6.9% to less than 1% [2]. In this regard, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM), such as monitoring of somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), is becoming a standard intervention. Because SEP and MEP signals are unavoidably influenced by the anesthetic method or drug used, efforts are in progress to achieve optimal anesthetic management, including the use of agents that have minimal or no effects on IONM [3].

Generally, volatile anesthetics act on both γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, thereby significantly reducing the amplitude of cortical MEP and SEP signals as well as delaying their latency compared with intravenous (IV) anesthetics [4,5]. Thus, total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with little effect on MEP signals is preferred for IONM [6]. However, propofol, a representative IV anesthetic, is also associated with reduced amplitude and delayed latency of SEPs in a dose-dependent manner [3,7]. Long-term propofol infusions can cause a significant decrease in MEP amplitude [8], as well as various side effects such as delayed recovery, metabolic acidosis, platelet function decline, and hyperlipidemia [2].

Remimazolam, a newly developed benzodiazepine, is an ester-based GABAA receptor agonist that is harmless even under constant IV infusion [9,10]. Remimazolam has certain explicit benefits over conventional benzodiazepines, including a short context-sensitive half-life, rapid onset, conversion to an inactive metabolite by tissue esterase independent of hepatic or renal function, and presence of an antidote [11,12]. Recently, few case reports have shown that TIVA with remimazolam may have minimal effect on the MEPs of patients undergoing cervical spine surgery [13–15] and SEPs of those undergoing neurosurgery [16]. However, no systematic studies have specifically addressed the usefulness of remimazolam in IONM, and clinical trials are required to establish whether TIVA with remimazolam is comparable to conventional TIVA with propofol. Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to compare the effects of IV remimazolam and IV propofol on IONM in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with SEP and MEP monitoring in all four extremities.

Materials and Methods

Participant enrollment and assignment

Participant enrollment and assignment

This study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial and performed at a tertiary hospital in compliance with the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Our protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and hospital research ethics committee of Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System (IRB No. 3-2021-0189) on June 23, 2021, and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04968054) on July 13, 2021, before patient enrollment. The present study included patients (20–70 years of age) with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I−III scheduled for elective cervical spine surgery requiring IONM due to musculoskeletal diseases requiring IONM, such as cervical spondylotic myelopathy or ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, in the Department of Neurosurgery at a single institution between July 2021 and May 2023. Exclusion criteria for the study included patients who had tolerance or hypersensitivity to benzodiazepines, dependence on or addiction to psychotropic drugs or alcohol, previous brain-related neurosurgery, pacemaker or intracranial device, received steroid pulse therapy recently (within one month), or refused consent. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

After obtaining informed consent, patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to either Group P (propofol) or Group R (remimazolam). The randomization sequence was determined via computer-generated block randomization with a block size of four by a researcher who was not involved in the study. Each generated code was hidden in a numbered opaque envelope. On the day of surgery, another researcher opened the envelope, and each patient was assigned to the study group according to the code in the envelope. All patients, surgeons (one attending surgeon with over 30 years of experience and his surgical team), and outcome assessors were unaware of the patient group assignment.

Preoperative SEP examination

Preoperative SEP examination

Before admission to the hospital, a preoperative SEP (preopSEP) examination was conducted on all enrolled patients by an experienced physiatrist in an electromagnetically shielded room using Medelec^TM Synergy electromyogram equipment (Oxford Instrument Medical) at the outpatient clinic. Bilateral median and tibial SEP latencies were obtained by stimulating the median nerves at the wrists or the tibial nerves at the ankles (intensity, 12–20 mA; pulse width, 0.3 ms; frequency, 4.7 Hz; sweep numbers per average, 300), recording at C3 (right median), C4 (left median), and Cz (right and left tibial nerves), and referencing FPz according to the international 10–20 electroencephalography (EEG) system. The latency was recorded as N20 for median SEPs and P37 for tibial SEPs.

Anesthesia and intervention

Anesthesia and intervention

All patients entered the operating room without any benzodiazepine premedication, and their vital signs were monitored using non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, and electrocardiography measurements. Depth of anesthesia was assessed via the Patient Status Index (PSI) value using a SedLine^® sensor (Masimo) attached to the forehead. Intraoperative body temperature was monitored using an esophageal stethoscope, and continuous arterial blood pressure was measured via radial arterial catheterization.

In Group P, TIVA was performed with an effect-site target-controlled infusion (TCI) of 2% propofol (Fresofol 2% injection 50 ml vial; Fresenius Kabi) and 20 μg/ml remifentanil (Ultian^TM injection 1 mg vial; Hanlim). A commercially available TCI pump (Agilia^® Connect; Fresenius Kabi) was used. The effect-site TCI for propofol was based on Schnider’s pharmacokinetic model and that for remifentanil was based on Minto et al.’s model [17,18]. Anesthesia was induced with 3 μg/ml propofol and 3 ng/ml remifentanil initially, and the doses were subsequently titrated depending on the patient’s PSI and vital signs. In Group R, TIVA with remimazolam–remifentanil was performed via a previously described method [9,10]. Remimazolam (ByFavo^TM; Hana Pharmaceutical) was initially administered at 6–12 mg/kg/h during anesthetic induction and maintained at 0.5–2 mg/kg/h after the patient lost consciousness.

In both groups, 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium (Esmeron^TM, N.V. Organon) was administered as a neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) for intubation, and no additional infusion was used for MEP monitoring during surgery (except in cases when the patient moved to an extent of spontaneous breathing that interfered with the operation). In addition, the response of the adductor pollicis brevis muscle to train-of-four (TOF) stimulation of the ulnar nerve using a neuromuscular transmission module (M-NMT Modulew, Datex-Ohmeda Inc.) was measured every 15 min. Continuous end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO₂) tension was maintained at 30–40 mmHg. The depth of anesthesia was adjusted by PSI from 25 to 50, with a mean arterial pressure (MAP) within 20%–30% of the baseline value (minimum 65 mmHg over). Acetaminophen (1 g) and nefopam (20 mg) were administered intravenously to reduce postoperative pain, and 75 µg of palonosetron was injected to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting during surgery. Patient-controlled analgesia was formulated with 10 µg/kg of fentanyl, 2 mg/kg of nefopam, and 0.6 mg of ramosetron for an IV route. At the completion of the operation, all administered anesthetic agents were terminated; further, neuromuscular blockade (NMB) was reversed by using 0.07 mg/kg neostigmine with 0.05 mg/kg of glycopyrrolate. After confirming spontaneous breathing and recovery of consciousness in the patient, extubation was performed. Patients were then transferred to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Acquisition of IONM

Acquisition of IONM

IONM was conducted using the Cascade^® IONM system (Cadwell Industries) by a skilled technician under the direct supervision of a professional physiatrist blinded to the group allocation of patients. Intraoperative SEP waves were acquired continuously throughout the surgical procedure, following a protocol similar to that used for preopSEPs. The initial waveform was acquired immediately after completion of the IONM setup that occurred after anesthesia induction. Intraoperative MEPs were obtained from the bilateral deltoids (Del), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), tibialis anterior (TA), and abductor hallucis (AH) muscles using transcranial electrical consisting of six squared stimuli (intensity, 200–400 mV; pulse duration, 0.5 ms; interstimulus interval, 5 ms). Interhemispheric stimulation was applied using a subdermal needle electrode placed at C3 and C4 according to the international 10–20 EEG system. Montages C3 and C4 were used to obtain the MEPs of the right and left extremities, respectively.

Both intraoperative SEP and MEP waves were obtained at the following time intervals in sequence: T1, 30 min after anesthetic induction; T2, 30 min after the surgical incision (approximately 60 min after administering an NMBA for intubation); T3, after laminectomy or discectomy; T4, immediately after the insertion of plates or fixation of the pedicle screw; and T5, before closing the surgical wound. The warning criteria for SEPs were defined as either a latency prolongation of more than 10% compared with the baseline (T1) latency, or a decrease in peak-to-peak amplitude of more than 50% compared with the baseline amplitude on any side, of any examined nerve [19]. The warning criterion for MEPs was defined as a decrease in amplitude greater than 50% compared with the baseline (T2) amplitude [19]. As T2 was approximately more than 60 min after NMBA administration for endotracheal intubation, the time point at which MEP comparisons relied on anesthetic effects rather than NMB effects was considered. When MEP was measured at T2, the range of TOF (%) values was over 0.5 in both the groups. Any alterations in SEPs or MEPs beyond the warning criteria were promptly relayed to the surgeons and attending anesthesiologist during surgery. To ascertain the intergroup differences in the coefficient of variation (CV) of the MEP amplitudes, the MEP wave was recorded three times, with at least 30-s intervals, at both T1 and T2. Since NMB is known to increase the CV of MEP amplitude [20], repeated measurements were performed at T1 and T2. However, at T3–T5, we refrained from repeated transcranial electrical stimulation for MEP acquisition because this could induce patient movement and potentially interfere with critical surgical procedures.

Outcome assessment

Outcome assessment

Our primary outcome was to confirm any significant differences in the change in the SEP latency of the median nerve (N20) obtained before and after anesthesia that was defined as the ratio (percentage) of the value measured after anesthetic induction (T1) divided by the value measured before anesthesia (preopSEP) between the two groups. The secondary outcome was to determine any differences in the change in SEP latency of the tibial nerve (P37) before and after anesthesia between the groups. Temporal changes in the latency and amplitude of SEPs and the amplitude of MEPs obtained during surgery were compared between the groups. We also collected information on the total consumption of anesthetics and vasopressors administered during anesthesia, hemodynamic data and PSI values, duration of stay in PACU, length of postoperative hospital stays, and postoperative adverse events, including neurological dysfunction. Neurological examinations were conducted one day before and one day after the surgery by a neurosurgeon using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scoring system within a range of 0–17, encompassing motor functions of the upper and lower extremities, sensory functions of the upper and lower extremities and trunk, and bladder function [21].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis

A previous study [2] comparing two anesthesia methods showed a significant difference in the SEP latency between the two groups when the mean difference was 1.6. Based on this result, 27 subjects per group were required for calculating a 0.05 type 1 error (α) and 80% power (1-β). However, considering a dropout rate of 20%, 33 participants per group were required (66 in total). G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf) was used to determine the sample size.

The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to confirm the normal distribution of all variables. Continuous variables are presented as the mean ± SD or median (Q1, Q3) and were compared using an independent two-sample t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate, according to the normality distribution. Categorical variables are indicated as the percentages of the total number of patients and were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. The standardized difference was calculated using the mean ± SD or the proportion of each group based on a commonly used formula [22]. Linear mixed models were applied to continuous outcomes, such as SEPs, MEPs, and hemodynamic data with repeated measures. We evaluated the effect of the anesthetic intervention on each outcome between the groups at each time point in terms of (1) between-group differences (group effects), (2) within-group changes over time (time effects), and (3) between-group differences in changes over time (group-by-time interaction effects). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction were performed for multiple comparisons when variables with repeated measures showed significant differences between the groups. After applying the Bonferroni correction, the adjusted P value was found to be less than 0.05/3. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute) with two-sided P values < 0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results

Of the 66 patients assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned, IONM could not be performed for two patients. Finally, 64 patients (Group P, 33; Group R, 31) completed the study and were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). Patient demographic data are presented in Table 1. The preoperative neurological function was assessed using the JOA scoring system.

The SEP latencies (N20 and P37) measured before surgery (at preoperative time and T1) are listed in Table 2. The change (%) in bilateral N20 latency 30 min after anesthetic induction compared with preoperative time did not differ between the groups (right: 100.3% for Group P vs. 99.8% for Group R, P = 0.688; left: 100.7% for Group P vs. 93.7% for Group R, P = 0.098). Additionally, the changes in the bilateral P37 latencies at T1 did not differ from those preoperatively between the groups.

Changes in intraoperative bilateral N20 latencies and amplitudes, including those of P37, with each parameter transformed as a percentage of the values based on T1 (baseline) are shown in Fig. 2. No significant differences in group-by-time interaction effects were observed. Intraoperative changes in MEP amplitudes are shown in Fig. 3. Among the eight MEP amplitudes, each parameter was transformed as a percentage of the values based on T2 (baseline), and a significant group-time interaction effect was observed only in the right APB (P = 0.015, Fig. 3C). All variables related to SEP latencies and amplitudes and MEP amplitudes are presented in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, and Supplementary Material, respectively.

The intraoperative NMBA level increased over time in TOF (%) that was the first and fourth twitch response to TOF stimulation in both groups, and no significant group-time interaction effect was observed between Groups P and R (Supplementary Fig. 1). In addition, the CV (%) of MEP amplitudes at T1 and T2 did not differ significantly between the groups (Supplementary Table 3).

The intraoperative parameters and postoperative recovery profiles are presented in Table 3. The total consumption of phenylephrine was significantly lower in Group R than in Group P (280 [90–1300] µg vs. 880 [320–3020] µg, respectively; P = 0.030). Intraoperative PSI values and perioperative hemodynamic parameters are shown in Supplementary Fig. 2. Group R had a significantly smaller range of heart rate changes over time than Group P (P = 0.003). Moreover, the PSI values showed a significant group-by-time interaction effect (P < 0.001) and were significantly higher in Group R than in Group P, except before anesthesia induction.

One patient in each group experienced intraoperative movement to the extent of spontaneous breathing that interfered with the operation, thus requiring additional muscle relaxants. In both cases, the additional administration of NMBA had little effect on surgery or IONM; therefore, these patients were not excluded from the study. The postoperative total JOA score increased in both groups compared with those measured before surgery, and no significant differences in motor and sensory function according to JOA scores were observed between Groups P and R. Regarding postoperative complications, there were no significant differences between the groups; one case of myodesopsia and one case of urinary tract infection in Group P were observed that were resolved before discharge. Two patients in Group R experienced wound problems (oozing, dehiscence), but no sequelae were observed upon discharge.

Discussion

This study found no significant difference in the change in SEP latencies between Groups P and R preoperatively and after anesthetic induction, suggesting that remimazolam administration itself had no influence on SEP latencies in any muscle group due to anesthesia. Furthermore, no significant group-by-time interaction effect on SEP latency/amplitude or MEP amplitude during the operation, except in the right APB, was observed.

IONM is widely used because of its safety and effectiveness in detecting nerve injuries during surgery [23–25]. This allows immediate corrective actions to preserve neurological function and decreases the incidence of new-onset postoperative neurological deterioration by detecting intraoperative spinal cord compromise early during spinal surgery [14,26]. Generally, anesthetics adversely affect the ability to record evoked potential responses in a dose-dependent manner that may reduce the efficacy of detecting compromised spinal function [3,27,28]. Consequently, it is crucial to preserve the quality of SEPs and minimize the effects of anesthetic agents on neurological monitoring.

Compared with other anesthetic agents, both propofol and benzodiazepines have exhibited fewer effects on SEP latency and amplitude and MEP amplitude. TIVA with propofol and remifentanil is a typical anesthetic method frequently used to optimize IONM [29,30], although dose-related adverse effects may occur with propofol anesthesia depending on the infusion duration [31–33]. A similar effect is observed with benzodiazepine use. Previous studies have reported mild and moderate decreases in N20 and later components of the cortical amplitude wave with the administration of 0.1–0.25 mg/kg diazepam [34]. Administration of 0.2 mg/kg midazolam, followed by an infusion at 5 mg/h, has been reported to produce a depression in the cortical SEP amplitude without alterations in latency [35]. A significant amplitude depression of electrical transcranial MEP, up to 23% of the baseline value, was observed following one injection of 0.05 mg/kg midazolam [35]. However, it is unclear whether remimazolam suppresses SEP or MEP owing to the lack of control data without remimazolam use. Only few cases of successful SEP or MEP monitoring with intraoperative remimazolam infusion have been reported [13–15]. To determine whether the effects of remimazolam and propofol are comparable, the impact of intraoperative remimazolam infusion on SEP and MEP should be evaluated to ensure appropriate IONM monitoring.

Prolonged exposure to anesthetics because of long operative duration can depress MEP responses that is called ‘anesthetic fade’ [36]. In contrast, we found that MEP amplitudes increased slightly over time under general anesthesia in both groups, with similar levels of NMBA between the groups. These findings may be attributed to the recovery effect over time due to NMBA administration during induction. Although partial NMB, such as 1–2 twitches or at T1 between 5% and 50% of the baseline in a TOF electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve, did not make a significant difference for proper MEP monitoring, the allowable degree of NMB for MEP monitoring remains controversial. In our study, we observed that even NMB levels below approximately 80% of the TOF slightly deteriorated MEP amplitudes.

In addition to the use of anesthetics, intraoperative variables that may affect evoked potentials include blood pressure, temperature, acid-base balance, oxygen and carbon dioxide tensions, and hematocrit [37]. Consequently, our efforts kept the vital signs stable and maintained the body temperature intraoperatively. Moreover, we investigated the arterial blood gases and estimated blood loss including that in blood transfusion. No significant differences in the factors that may affect evoked potentials were observed between the two groups, and these similar conditions may lend further credibility to our finding that remimazolam and propofol showed comparable IONM. Further, Group P showed a significant decrease in heart rate intraoperatively and was administered a larger amount of phenylephrine (a vasoactive drug) than Group R. These findings suggest that remimazolam can provide a more hemodynamically stable anesthetic environment than propofol, a premise supported by a previous study [38]. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first double-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of propofol and remimazolam during TIVA for IONM.

For reliable detection of neurological injury by monitoring MEP amplitude changes, the amplitude should be larger, although the CV must be smaller, meaning that the MEP amplitude variability (measured by the CV) should decrease. Selner et al. considered that a CV greater than 40% is inadequate for MEP interpretation [39]. We found that the CV of MEP amplitudes during anesthesia was below 40% in all muscles except the right TA (41.8%) in Group R. Similar to that observed in our study, previous studies have also found that the variability in MEP responses in the leg is commonly greater than that in the arm [40,41]. Accordingly, our MEP CV values suggest that MEP amplitudes are reliable and appropriate when interpreted during both remimazolam and propofol infusions.

Our study has some limitations. First, PSI monitoring was used as a guide to compare the depth of anesthesia between Groups P and R. However, the equivalent PSI value may not indicate the equivalent depth of anesthesia, especially when drugs other than propofol are used [42]. Ideally, the actual plasma concentrations of propofol and remimazolam should be measured and compared intraoperatively; however, this was not possible in this study. Moreover, the PSI showed a significant intergroup difference over time, even though both groups maintained a general anesthesia depth range of 25–50. Given the controversy regarding monitoring the depth of anesthesia with benzodiazepines, including remimazolam, a clear interpretation of the differences in PSI is difficult. Second, because of the small sample size, it was difficult to fully verify the significance of the secondary outcome and distinctively prove the reliability of IONM for actual neurological deficits. Therefore, it is challenging to clearly define true or false positives in relation to evoked potential monitoring and neurological deterioration. Third, some of the results were difficult to interpret. A significant group-time interaction effect on MEP amplitude was observed only in the right APB (P = 0.015); in particular, larger amplitudes were observed in Group R than in Group P immediately after plate insertion or pedicle screw fixation (P = 0.049). A previous study has reported that performing spinal surgery in the prone position may compress the brachial plexus, resulting in abnormal unilateral MEP results [43]; however, this does not fully explain the reason for observing MEP amplitude differences only in the right APB. Additionally, although the difference between the two groups was statistically significant, it is difficult to assert its clinical significance. Therefore, further studies on the effects of remimazolam on MEPs in specific muscle areas are warranted.

In conclusion, as the TIVA combination of remimazolam–remifentanil showed no significantly different effects on IONM compared with conventional TIVA based on propofol–remifentanil, remimazolam can be used as an alternative to propofol for evoked potential monitoring. Additionally, our research broadens the range of options for anesthetics and their combinations when performing IONM during spinal surgery. Remimazolam can provide a safe anesthetic environment, especially for high-risk patients who have difficulty using propofol or are hemodynamically unstable. To corroborate our findings, additional clinical trials are required in other surgical contexts and in more diverse patients to determine the effects of remimazolam on evoked potentials.

We greatly thank Soyoung Jeon and Hyejin Yang at the Biostatistics Collaboration Unit and the Electronic Medical Record Team at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, for their great contributions to this study.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Contributions

Myoung Hwa Kim (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Jinyoung Park (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Yoon Gil Park (Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Yong Eun Cho (Investigation; Methodology; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Dawoon Kim (Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Dong Jun Lee (Data curation; Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Kyu Wan Kwak (Data curation; Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Jongyun Lee (Data curation; Investigation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Dong Woo Han (Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Supervision; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing)

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1.

Profiles of intraoperative latency and amplitude of SEPs between groups.

kja-24613-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Profiles of intraoperative amplitude of MEPs between groups.

kja-24613-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

The CV (%) of MEP amplitude .

kja-24613-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1.

Intraoperative levels in NMB changes.

kja-24613-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2.

Changes in perioperative parameters.

kja-24613-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Supplementary Material.

Original tracings of IONM obtained during anesthesia.

kja-24613-Supplementary-Marterial.xlsx

1. Li F, Gorji R, Allott G, Modes K, Lunn R, Yang ZJ. The usefulness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in cervical spine surgery: a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2012; 24: 185-90.
[Article] [PubMed]

2. Martin DP, Bhalla T, Thung A, Rice J, Beebe A, Samora W, et al. A preliminary study of volatile agents or total intravenous anesthesia for neurophysiological monitoring during posterior spinal fusion in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39: E1318-24.
[Article] [PubMed]

3. Banoub M, Tetzlaff JE, Schubert A. Pharmacologic and physiologic influences affecting sensory evoked potentials: implications for perioperative monitoring. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 716-37.
[Article] [PubMed]

4. Vaugha DJ, Thornton C, Wright DR, Fernandes JR, Robbins P, Doré C, et al. Effects of different concentrations of sevoflurane and desflurane on subcortical somatosensory evoked responses in anaesthetized, non-stimulated patients. Br J Anaesth 2001; 86: 59-62.
[Article] [PubMed]

5. Wakasugi M, Hirota K, Roth SH, Ito Y. The effects of general anesthetics on excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission in area CA1 of the rat hippocampus in vitro. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 676-80.
[Article] [PubMed]

6. Hasan MS, Tan JK, Chan CY, Kwan MK, Karim FS, Goh KJ. Comparison between effect of desflurane/remifentanil and propofol/remifentanil anesthesia on somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery-A randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018; 26: 2309499018789529.
[Article] [PubMed]

7. Hargreaves SJ, Watt JW. Intravenous anaesthesia and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation monitoring in spinal column surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 70-3.
[Article] [PubMed]

8. Tanaka M, Shigematsu H, Kawaguchi M, Hayashi H, Takatani T, Iwata E, et al. Muscle-evoked potentials after electrical stimulation to the brain in patients undergoing spinal surgery are less affected by anesthetic fade with constant-voltage stimulation than with constant-current stimulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44: 1492-8.
[Article] [PubMed]

9. Schüttler J, Eisenried A, Lerch M, Fechner J, Jeleazcov C, Ihmsen H. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam (CNS 7056) after continuous infusion in healthy male volunteers: part i. Pharmacokinetics and clinical pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology 2020; 132: 636-51.
[Article] [PubMed]

10. Eisenried A, Schüttler J, Lerch M, Ihmsen H, Jeleazcov C. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remimazolam (CNS 7056) after continuous infusion in healthy male volunteers: part ii. Pharmacodynamics of electroencephalogram effects. Anesthesiology 2020; 132: 652-66.
[Article] [PubMed]

11. Cardia L. Remimazolam: an ultrashort-acting intravenous anesthetic suitable for general anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiol 2021; 87: 1059-63.
[Article] [PubMed]

12. Kim SH, Fechner J. Remimazolam - current knowledge on a new intravenous benzodiazepine anesthetic agent. Korean J Anesthesiol 2022; 75: 307-15.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]

13. Kondo T, Toyota Y, Narasaki S, Watanabe T, Miyoshi H, Saeki N, et al. Intraoperative responses of motor evoked potentials to the novel intravenous anesthetic remimazolam during spine surgery: a report of two cases. JA Clin Rep 2020; 6: 97.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]

14. Aratani Y, Tokinaga Y, Tanioku T, Maruyama T, Kawamata T. A case of decreased amplitude in motor evoked potentials under remimazolam anesthesia. Cureus 2022; 14: e27593.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]

15. Yamada S, Hayamizu K, Akiyama Y, Kimura Y, Hashimoto S, Mikuni N, et al. Effect of remimazolam on intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring of visual-evoked potential: a case series. J Anesth 2023; 37: 311-4.
[Article] [PubMed]

16. Tanaka R, Sato A, Shinohara K, Shiratori T, Kiuchi C, Murakami T, et al. Comparison of sensory evoked potentials during neurosurgery under remimazolam anesthesia with those under propofol anesthesia. Minerva Anestesiol 2022; 88: 81-2.
[Article] [PubMed]

17. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, Andresen C, Goodale DB, Shafer SL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 1170-82.
[Article] [PubMed]

18. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, Youngs E, Lemmens HJ, Gambus PL, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 10-23.
[Article] [PubMed]

19. Weinzierl MR, Reinacher P, Gilsbach JM, Rohde V. Combined motor and somatosensory evoked potentials for intraoperative monitoring: intra- and postoperative data in a series of 69 operations. Neurosurg Rev 2007; 30: 109-16.
[Article] [PubMed]

20. Kim WH, Lee JJ, Lee SM, Park MN, Park SK, Seo DW, et al. Comparison of motor-evoked potentials monitoring in response to transcranial electrical stimulation in subjects undergoing neurosurgery with partial vs no neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110: 567-76.
[Article] [PubMed]

21. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1981; 6: 354-64.
[Article] [PubMed]

22. Peter CA. Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research. Commun Stat Simul Comput 2009; 38: 1228-34.
[Article]

23. Bala E, Sessler DI, Nair DR, McLain R, Dalton JE, Farag E. Motor and somatosensory evoked potentials are well maintained in patients given dexmedetomidine during spine surgery. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 417-25.
[Article] [PubMed]

24. Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35(9 Suppl): S37-46.
[Article] [PubMed]

25. Thuet ED, Winscher JC, Padberg AM, Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Dobbs MB, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a 23-year experience of 3436 surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35: 1880-6.
[Article] [PubMed]

26. Thuet ED, Padberg AM, Raynor BL, Bridwell KH, Riew KD, Taylor BA, et al. Increased risk of postoperative neurologic deficit for spinal surgery patients with unobtainable intraoperative evoked potential data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 2094-103.
[Article] [PubMed]

27. Liu EH, Wong HK, Chia CP, Lim HJ, Chen ZY, Lee TL. Effects of isoflurane and propofol on cortical somatosensory evoked potentials during comparable depth of anaesthesia as guided by bispectral index. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94: 193-7.
[Article] [PubMed]

28. Lotto ML, Banoub M, Schubert A. Effects of anesthetic agents and physiologic changes on intraoperative motor evoked potentials. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2004; 16: 32-42.
[Article] [PubMed]

29. Clapcich AJ, Emerson RG, Roye DP Jr, Xie H, Gallo EJ, Dowling KC, et al. The effects of propofol, small-dose isoflurane, and nitrous oxide on cortical somatosensory evoked potential and bispectral index monitoring in adolescents undergoing spinal fusion. Anesth Analg 2004; 99: 1334-40.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]

30. Imani F, Jafarian A, Hassani V, Khan ZH. Propofol-alfentanil vs propofol-remifentanil for posterior spinal fusion including wake-up test. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96: 583-6.
[Article] [PubMed]

31. Vokes DE, Linskey ME, Armstrong WB. Propofol lipemia mimicking chyle leak during neck dissection. Head Neck 2006; 28: 1147-9.
[Article] [PubMed]

32. Pascoe PJ, Ilkiw JE, Frischmeyer KJ. The effect of the duration of propofol administration on recovery from anesthesia in cats. Vet Anaesth Analg 2006; 33: 2-7.
[Article] [PubMed]

33. Cravens GT, Packer DL, Johnson ME. Incidence of propofol infusion syndrome during noninvasive radiofrequency ablation for atrial flutter or fibrillation. Anesthesiology 2007; 106: 1134-8.
[Article] [PubMed]

34. Loughnan BL, Sebel PS, Thomas D, Rutherfoord CF, Rogers H. Evoked potentials following diazepam or fentanyl. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 195-8.
[Article] [PubMed]

35. Sloan TB, Fugina ML, Toleikis JR. Effects of midazolam on median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials. Br J Anaesth 1990; 64: 590-3.
[Article] [PubMed]

36. Lyon R, Feiner J, Lieberman JA. Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of “anesthetic fade”. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2005; 17: 13-9.
[PubMed]

37. Sahinovic MM, Gadella MC, Shils J, Dulfer SE, Drost G. Anesthesia and intraoperative neurophysiological spinal cord monitoring. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2021; 34: 590-6.
[Article] [PubMed]

38. Doi M, Hirata N, Suzuki T, Morisaki H, Morimatsu H, Sakamoto A. Safety and efficacy of remimazolam in induction and maintenance of general anesthesia in high-risk surgical patients (ASA class III): results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparative trial. J Anesth 2020; 34: 491-501.
[Article] [PubMed]

39. Selner AN, Ivanov AA, Esfahani DR, Bhimani AD, Waseem F, Behbahani M, et al. Feasibility of full neuromuscular blockade during transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring of neurosurgical procedures. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2022; 34: 69-73.
[Article] [PubMed]

40. van Dongen EP, ter Beek HT, Schepens MA, Morshuis WJ, Langemeijer HJ, de Boer A, et al. Within-patient variability of myogenic motor-evoked potentials to multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation during two levels of partial neuromuscular blockade in aortic surgery. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 22-7.
[Article] [PubMed]

41. Sloan TB. Muscle relaxant use during intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. J Clin Monit Comput 2013; 27: 35-46.
[Article] [PubMed]

42. Kim KM. Remimazolam: pharmacological characteristics and clinical applications in anesthesiology. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2022; 17: 1-11.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]

43. Phoowanakulchai S, Hayashi H, Oi A, Takeshima Y, Takatani T, Kawaguchi M. Unilateral abnormality of initial motor-evoked potential in the upper limb detected during lumbar spine surgery: a case report. JA Clin Rep 2024; 10: 23.
[Article] [PubMed] [PMC]