Effects of neuromuscular blockade on the surgical conditions of laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: a randomized clinical trial

The Effect of Remimazolam on the Baseline TOF Ratio: A Prospective, Clinical Study

Background: Remimazolam is a newly developed benzodiazepine. Early recovery from anesthesia because of its ultra-short acting effect and less hemodynamic side effects has been reported as the specific advantages of remimazolam. Therefore, the maintenance of anesthesia with propofol may be sometimes switched to remimazolam anesthesia maintenance during surgery because of the risk of delayed awakening and unstable hemodynamics. In the present study, to determine the influence of switching anesthesia from propofol to remimazolam on the baseline TOF ratio, the TOF ratio under remimazolam anesthesia maintenance without any neuromuscular blocking agents was compared to that calibrated after induction of general anesthesia with propofol. Methods: Twelve patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia in the supine position were investigated. After induction of general anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol, a supraglottic airway was inserted without neuromuscular blockade, and TOF stimulation every 15 s at the adductor pollicis muscle was started with acceleromyography. After stable baseline responses to TOF stimulation being obtained for at least 10 min under propofol anesthesia, the anesthetic agent was switched to remimazolam and TOF stimulation every 15 s was maintained for a further 60 min without any interruption. In each case, the averaged TOF ratio during the last 10 min of TOF monitoring was compared to that during the 10 min immediately before the beginning of remimazolam infusion using a paired t-test. Results: There were no significant differences in the TOF ratios before and after switching anesthesia to remimazolam (1.07 ± 0.03 vs. 1.07 ± 0.03, p=0.325). Conclusion: Switching anesthesia from propofol to remimazolam does not affect the baseline TOF ratio.

Deep neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing an abdominal laparoscopic procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred option for many procedures. To properly perform laparoscopic surgery, it is essential that sudden movements and abdominal contractions in patients are prevented, as it limits the surgeon's view. There has been a growing interest in the potential beneficial effect of deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in laparoscopic surgery. Deep NMB improves the surgical field by preventing abdominal contractions, and it is thought to decrease postoperative pain. However, it is uncertain if deep NMB improves intraoperative safety and thereby improves clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of deep neuromuscular blockade versus no, shallow, or moderate neuromuscular blockade during laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 July 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) in adults undergoing laparoscopic intra- or transperitoneal procedures comparing deep NMB to moderate, shallow, or no NMB. We excluded trials that did not report any of the primary or secondary outcomes of our review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. health-related quality of life, and 3. proportion of participants with serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. proportion of participants with non-serious adverse events, 5. readmissions within three months, 6. short-term pain scores, 7. measurements of postoperative recovery, and 8. operating time. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 randomised clinical trials with 3898 participants. Most trials included participants undergoing intraperitoneal oncological resection surgery. We present the Peto fixed-effect model for most dichotomous outcomes as only sparse events were reported. Comparison 1: deep versus moderate NMB Thirty-eight trials compared deep versus moderate NMB. Deep NMB may have no effect on mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 115.43; 12 trials, 1390 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life up to four days postoperative (mean difference (MD) 4.53 favouring deep NMB on the Quality of Recovery-40 score, 95% CI 0.96 to 8.09; 5 trials, 440 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; mean difference lower than the mean clinically important difference of 10 points). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB on intraoperatively serious adverse events (deep NMB 38/1150 versus moderate NMB 38/1076; Peto OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.52; 21 trials, 2231 participants; very low-certainty evidence), short-term serious adverse events (up to 60 days) (deep NMB 37/912 versus moderate NMB 42/852; Peto OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 16 trials, 1764 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and short-term non-serious adverse events (Peto OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35; 11 trials, 1232 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Deep NMB likely does not alter the duration of surgery (MD -0.51 minutes, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.32; 34 trials, 3143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain if deep NMB alters the length of hospital stay (MD -0.22 days, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.06; 19 trials, 2084 participants; low-certainty evidence) or pain scores one hour after surgery (MD -0.31 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.03; 22 trials, 1823 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point) and 24 hours after surgery (MD -0.60 points on the numeric rating scale, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 16 trials, 1404 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mean clinically important difference 1 point). Comparison 2: deep versus shallow NMB Three trials compared deep versus shallow NMB. The trials did not report on mortality and health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of deep NMB compared to shallow NMB on the proportion of serious adverse events (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 5.57; 2 trials, 158 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Comparison 3: deep versus no NMB One trial compared deep versus no NMB. There was no mortality in this trial, and health-related quality of life was not reported. The proportion of serious adverse events was 0/25 in the deep NMB group and 1/25 in the no NMB group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effects of deep NMB compared to moderate NMB on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Deep NMB likely results in little to no difference in health-related quality of life and duration of surgery compared to moderate NMB, and it may have no effect on the length of hospital stay. Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we do not know what the effect is of deep NMB on non-serious adverse events, pain scores, or readmission rates. Randomised clinical trials with adequate reporting of all adverse events would reduce the current uncertainties. Due to the low number of identified trials and the very low certainty of evidence, we do not know what the effect of deep NMB on serious adverse events is compared to shallow NMB and no NMB. We found no trials evaluating mortality and health-related quality of life.