Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns of Stimulation, Site of Monitoring, and Accuracy in Detecting Residual Neuromuscular Blockade

  • Neuromuscular Blockade (CA Lien, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Anesthesiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are important for general anesthesia because they induce temporary paralysis of skeletal muscles, which facilitates intubation, reduces patient movement during surgery, and improves surgical conditions. However, they require careful dosing and monitoring of their effects to avoid complications such as residual neuromuscular blockade.

Recent Findings

Understanding patterns of stimulation, site of monitoring, and accuracy in detecting residual neuromuscular blockade is crucial because it helps to ensure that patients recover fully from muscle relaxation induced by these agents, which can otherwise lead to respiratory complications and other adverse events.

Summary

Accurate monitoring and appropriate dosing of these drugs can also help to prevent under- or over-dosing, which will further complicate patient care.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Loughnan T, Lo A. Overview of the introduction of neuromuscular monitoring to clinical anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2013;41:19–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ottestad E, Orlovich D. History of peripheral nerve stimulation-Update for the 21st century. Pain Med. 2020;21:S3–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beecher HK, Todd DP. A study of the deaths associated with anesthesia and surgery: based on a study of 599, 548 anesthesias in ten institutions 1948–1952, inclusive. Ann Surg. 1954;140:2–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Capron F, Fortier LP, Racine S, Donati F. Tactile fade detection with hand or wrist stimulation using train-of-four, double-burst stimulation, 50-hertz tetanus, 100-hertz tetanus, and acceleromyography. Anesth Analg. 2006;102:1578–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Caffrey RR, Warren ML, Becker KE. Neuromuscular blockade monitoring comparing the orbicularis oculi and adductor pollicis muscles. Anesthesiology. 1986;65:95–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thilen SR, Hansen BE, Ramaiah R, Kent CD, Treggiari MM, Bhananker SM. Intraoperative neuromuscular monitoring site and residual paralysis. Anesthesiology. 2012;117:964–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Donati F, Meistelman C, Plaud B. Vecuronium neuromuscular blockade at the diaphragm, orbicularis oculi and adductor pollicis muscles. Can J Anaesth. 1990;37:S13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sayson SC, Mongan PD. Onset of action of mivacurium chloride. A comparison of neuromuscular blockade monitoring at the adductor pollicis and the orbicularis oculi. Anesthesiology. 1994;81:35–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Debaene B, Meistelman C, Beaussier M, Lienhart A. Visual estimation of train-of-four responses at the orbicularis oculi and posttetanic count at the adductor pollicis during intense neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:697–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rimaniol JM, Dhonneur G, Sperry L, Duvaldestin P. A comparison of the neuromuscular blocking effects of atracurium, mivacurium, and vecuronium on the adductor pollicis and the orbicularis oculi muscle in humans. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:808–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitajima T, Ishii K, Kobayashi T, Ogata H. Differential effects of vecuronium on the thumb and the big toe muscles evaluated by acceleration measurement. J Anesth. 1994;8:143–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kern SE, Johnson JO, Orr JA, Westenskow DR. Clinical analysis of the flexor hallucis brevis as an alternative site for monitoring neuromuscular block from mivacurium. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9:383–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Heier T, Hetland S. A comparison of train-of-four monitoring: mechanomyography at the thumb vs acceleromyography at the big toe. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:550–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Viby-Mogensen J, Jensen NH, Engbaek J, et al. Tactile and visual evaluation of the response to train-of-four stimulation. Anesthesiology. 1985;63:440–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Drenck NE, Ueda N, Olsen NV, et al. Manual evaluation of residual curarization using double burst stimulation: a comparison with train-of-four. Anesthesiology. 1989;70:578–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brand JB, Cullen DJ, Wilson NE, et al. Spontaneous recovery from nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade: correlation between clinical and evoked responses. Anesth Analg. 1977;56:55–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Edwards L, Nam L, Shinefeld J, Morewood G. Universal quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring at an academic medical center—a multimodal analysis of the potential impact on clinical outcomes and total cost of care. Perioper Care Oper Room Manag. 2021;21:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. • Renew J, Hex K, Johnson P, Lovett P, Pence R. Ease of Application of Various Neuromuscular Devices for Routine Monitoring. Anesth Analg. 2021;132:1421–8. (A nice summary of the currently available quantitative devices on the market. Given that most practices do not have quantitative monitoring available, this could prove to be an invaluable resource.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bussey L, Jelacic S, Togashi K, Hulvershorn J, Bowdle A. Train-of-four monitoring with the twitchview monitor electromyograph compared to the GE NMT electromyograph and manual palpation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2021;35:1477–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Salminen J, van Gils M, Paloheimo M, Yli-Hankala A. Comparison of train-of-four ratios measured with Datex-Ohmeda’s M-NMT MechanoSensor™ and M-NMT ElectroSensor™. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:295–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Motamed C, Demiri M, Colergrave N. Comparison of train of four measurements with kinemyography NMT DATEX and Accelerography TOFscan. Med Sci. 2021;29:21.

    Google Scholar 

  22. • Thilen S, Weigel W, Todd M, Dutton R, et al. 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Monitoring and Antagonism of Neuromuscular Blockade: A Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. Anesthesiology. 2023;138:13–41. (Latest recommendations from the ASA recommending both quantitative monitoring and sugammadex reversal for most patients receiving intermediate-acting paralytics.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brull SJ, Murphy GS. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons unlearned. Part II: methods to reduce the risk of residual weakness. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010;111:129–40.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Franklin M, Marymont JH, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Postanesthesia care unit recovery times and neuromuscular blocking drugs: a prospective study of orthopedic surgical patients randomized to receive pancuronium or rocuronium. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:193–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Avram MJ, Greenberg SB, Shear TD, Vender JS, Parikh KN, Patel SS, Patel A. Residual neuromuscular block in the elderly: incidence and clinical implications. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1322–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Franklin M, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual paralysis at the time of tracheal extubation. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1840–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. • Kheterpal S, Vaughn MT, Dubovoy TZ, Shah NJ, et al. Sugammadex versus neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular blockade and postoperative pulmonary Complications (STRONGER): a multicenter matched cohort analysis. Anesthesiology. 2020;132(6):1371–81. (A large retrospective data analysis showing that sugammadex use reduces the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications when compared to neostigmine.)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Murphy GS, Brull SJ. Residual neuromuscular block: lessons unlearned. Part I: definitions, incidence, and adverse physiologic effects of residual neuromuscular block. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:120–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maybauer DM, Geldner G, Blobner M, Pühringer F, Hofmockel R, Rex C, et al. Incidence and duration of residual paralysis at the end of surgery after multiple administrations of cisatracurium and rocuronium. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:12–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Saager L, Maiese EM, Bash LD, Meyer TA, Minkowitz H, Groudine S, Philip BK, Tanaka P, Gan TJ, Rodriguez-Blanco Y, Soto R, Heisel O. Incidence, risk factors, and consequences of residual neuromuscular block in the United States: the prospective, observational, multicenter RECITE-US study. J Clin Anesth. 2019;55:33–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fortier LP, McKeen D, Turner K, de Médicis É, Warriner B, Jones PM, Chaput A, Pouliot JF, Galarneau A. The RECITE study: a Canadian prospective, multicenter study of the incidence and severity of residual neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:366–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Naguib M, Brull S, Hunter J, Kopman A, Fülesdi B. Anesthesiologists’ overconfidence in their perceived knowledge of neuromuscular monitoring and its relevance to all aspects of medical practice: an international survey. Anesth Analg. 2019;128:1118–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nemes R, Lengyel S, Nagy G, Hampton DR, Gray M, Renew JR, Tassonyi E, Fülesdi B, Brull SJ. Ipsilateral and simultaneous comparison of responses from acceleromyography- and electromyography-based neuromuscular monitors. Anesthesiology. 2021;135:597–611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, MI, USA

    Jose Navas-Blanco & Roy Soto

Authors
  1. Jose Navas-Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roy Soto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roy Soto.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. Dr. Soto has received research grant support and consultation honoraria in the past from Merck Pharmaceuticals. All authors certify that they have no ongoing affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Navas-Blanco, J., Soto, R. Patterns of Stimulation, Site of Monitoring, and Accuracy in Detecting Residual Neuromuscular Blockade. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 13, 279–283 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-023-00588-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-023-00588-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation