Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 19–27 | Cite as

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

  • Hans Kirkegaard-Nielsen
  • Hans Søren Helbo-Hansen
  • Peter Lindholm
  • Henrik Stougaard Pedersen
  • Inge Krogh Severinsen
  • Michael Braüner Schmidt
Article

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.

Monitoring: neuromuscular function Monitoring: train-of-four Monitoring: acceleromyography Monitoring: mechanomyography Equipment: TOF-Guard Equipment: Myograph 2000 Neuromuscular relaxants: atracurium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 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: 45–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen E, Viby-Mogensen J, Bang U. The Accelograph: a new neuromuscular transmission monitor. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 49–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: 239–243PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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: 395–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    LaMantia KR, O'Connor T, Barash PG. Comparing methods of measurement: An Alternative Approach. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 781–783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; (1): 307–310Google Scholar
  7. 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: 411–414PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loan PB, Paxton LD, Mirakhur RK, Connolly FM, McCoy EP. The TOG-Guard neuromuscular transmission monitor. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 699–702PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lepage JY, Malinovsky JM, Lechevalier T, Cozian A, Pinaud M. Neuromuscular transmission analyzer: mechanomyography vs acceleromyography. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: A891Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viby-Mogensen J. Clinical assessment of neuromuscular transmission. Br J Anaesth 1982; 54: 209–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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: 978–982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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: 199–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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: 869–878PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Kirkegaard-Nielsen
    • 1
  • Hans Søren Helbo-Hansen
    • 1
  • Peter Lindholm
    • 1
  • Henrik Stougaard Pedersen
    • 1
  • Inge Krogh Severinsen
    • 1
  • Michael Braüner Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.From the Department of Anesthesia and Intensive CareOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark

Personalised recommendations