Skip to main content
Log in

New Equipment for Neuromuscular Transmission Monitoring: A Comparison of the TOF-Guard with the Myograph 2000

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective. The present study is to clarify whether the bias and limits of agreement of the TOF-Guard and the mechanomyograph differ from those of two mechanomyographs on contra lateral arms. Previous studies of the bias and limits of agreement between acceleromyographical (TOF-Guard®) and mechanomyographical measurements of neuromuscular transmission did not take the error introduced by using contra lateral arms into consideration. Methods. Fifty-two women undergoing gynecological surgery were anesthetized with midazolam, fentanyl, thiopental, halothane and nitrous oxide. Neuromuscular blockade was induced and maintained with atracurium. In 32 patients, neuromuscular monitoring was performed with a Myograph 2000® on one hand and a TOF-Guard® at the other (M/T group). In 20 patients, monitoring was performed with a Myograph 2000® at both hands (M/M group). Train-of-four stimulations were applied to the ulnar nerve at the wrist in both groups. Bias and limits of agreement between the contra lateral hands in each group were calculated as proposed by Bland and Altman. Results. When the TOF ratio was 0.25, TOF ratio bias and limits of agreement in the M/T group were 0.86 and 17.58 to −15.85, respectively. Corresponding values in the M/M group were −1.75 and 12.3 to −8.8. Bias in the M/T group decreased significantly to −8.1 when TOF ratio increased to 0.70, resulting in limits of agreement of 12.1 to −28.4. The corresponding values in the M/M group were bias 2.0 and limits of agreement 10.7 to −6.7. TOF-Guard® bias for onset time and time to 5% recovery of T1 (first twitch in TOF) were −19 s and −1.5 min, respectively; both values differed significantly from zero (P < 0.05). Taken together with the changing TOF-ratio bias during recovery in the M/T group, these results indicate different onset and recovery curves for the two monitoring devices. Conclusions. Due to wide limits of agreement and different recovery courses, acceleromyographic and mechanomyographic recordings of neuromuscular transmission cannot be used interchangeably. The substantial variation between simultaneous mechanomyographical recordings of neuromuscular transmission obtained in contra lateral arms suggests that this factor should be taken into account when studying new neuromuscular monitoring techniques using the two-arm technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Viby-Mogensen J, Jensen E, Werner MU, Kirkegaard-Nielsen H. Measurement of acceleration: a new method of monitoring neuromuscular function. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 45–48

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jensen E, Viby-Mogensen J, Bang U. The Accelograph: a new neuromuscular transmission monitor. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 49–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. May O, Kirkegaard-Nielsen H, Werner MU. The acceleration transducer – an assessment of its precision in comparison with a force displacement transducer. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 239–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Werner MU, Kirkegaard-Nielsen H, May O, Djernes M. Assessment of neuromuscular transmission by the evoked acceleration response. An evaluation of the accuracy of the acceleration transducer in comparison with a force displacement transducer. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 395–400

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. LaMantia KR, O'Connor T, Barash PG. Comparing methods of measurement: An Alternative Approach. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 781–783

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; (1): 307–310

  7. Harper NJN, Martlew R, Strang T, Wallace M. Monitoring neuromuscular block by acceleromyography: comparison of the Mini-Accelograph with the Myograph 2000. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72: 411–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Loan PB, Paxton LD, Mirakhur RK, Connolly FM, McCoy EP. The TOG-Guard neuromuscular transmission monitor. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 699–702

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lepage JY, Malinovsky JM, Lechevalier T, Cozian A, Pinaud M. Neuromuscular transmission analyzer: mechanomyography vs acceleromyography. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: A891

    Google Scholar 

  10. Viby-Mogensen J. Clinical assessment of neuromuscular transmission. Br J Anaesth 1982; 54: 209–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kern SE, Johnson JO, Westenskow DR, Orr JA. An effectiveness study of a new piezoelectric sensor for trainof-four measurement. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 978–982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Helbo-Hansen HS, Bang U, Kirkegaard-Nielsen H, Skovgaard LT. The accuracy of train-of-four monitoring at varying stimulation current. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 199–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Engbaek J, Roed J, Hangaard N, Viby-Mogensen J. The agreement between adductor pollicis mechanomyogram and first dorsal interosseous electromyogram. A pharmacodynamic study of rocuronium and vecuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1994; 38: 869–878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirkegaard-Nielsen, H., Helbo-Hansen, H.S., Lindholm, P. et al. New Equipment for Neuromuscular Transmission Monitoring: A Comparison of the TOF-Guard with the Myograph 2000. J Clin Monit Comput 14, 19–27 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOCM.0000012481.06502.02

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOCM.0000012481.06502.02

Navigation