CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pilote, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Martin, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pilote, M.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 43, 585-588, Copyright © 1996 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Neuromuscular monitoring: does it make a difference?

R Martin, I Bourdua, S Theriault, JP Tetrault and M Pilote
Department of Anaesthesia, University of Sherbrooke, P. Quebec, Canada.

PURPOSE: The objective of the present prospective study was to evaluate the influence of neuromuscular monitoring on the level of neuromuscular blockade from induction of anaesthesia until extubation of the trachea. METHODS: Forty-two patients aged between 18 and 73 yr undergoing a range of surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were randomly distributed into two groups of 21 patients each. In both groups a Datex NMT Monitor was used and electromyographic responses of the ulnar muscles to supramaximal stimulation of the ulnar nerve were recorded. In Group 1, the anaesthetist could see the movements of the stimulated hand, but not the monitor. In Group 2, the anaesthetist could see neither the stimulated hand nor the monitor. The same anaesthetist administered the neuromuscular relaxants which were succinylcholine 1.5 mg.kg-1 for tracheal intubation and vecuronium 0.1 mg.kg-1 for neuromuscular relaxation during surgery, followed by 1 to 2 mg maintenance injections. Possible residual curarization was evaluated in the recovery room by head life tests and pulse oximetry. RESULTS: Patients in Group 1 had deeper neuromuscular block throughout surgery, despite the use of a comparable dose of vecuronium (10.1 mg for G1 vs 11.2 mg for G2). The EMG values of T1 and train-of-four values were not different at tracheal intubation or at extubation. No patients presented signs of residual curarization in the recovery room. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that with the same amount of vecuronium the neuromuscular relaxation was deeper with the use of a simple neuromuscular monitoring (visual evaluation of the thumb movements). Despite the deeper neuromuscular block in the monitored group, there was no residual curarization in the recovery room.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.