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.

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.

Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

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.

Background: A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients. Methods: We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes. Results: Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups. Conclusion The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

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.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.