Should Neuromuscular Transmission Be Monitored Routinely During Anaesthesia?

  • J. Viby-Mogensen
Conference paper


Traditionally, anaesthetists evaluate the effect of neuromuscular blocking agents clinically: we observe the fasciculations following injection of succinylcholine, the movements of the reservoir bag, the spontaneous movements of the patient, head lift, etc.


Neuromuscular Blockade Residual Block Residual Neuromuscular Blockade Residual Neuromuscular Block Tactile Evaluation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Viby-Mogensen J (1981) Succinylcholine neuromuscular blockade in subjects homozygous for atypical plasma cholinesterase. Anesthesiology 55: 429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Østergaard D, Jensen FS, Jensen E et al (1993) Mivacurium-induced neuromuscular blockade in patients with atypical plasma cholinesterase. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 37: 314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Viby-Mogensen J, Howardy-Hansen P, Chraemmer-Jørgensen B et al (1981) Posttetanic count (PTC): a new method of evaluating an intense non-depolarizing neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology 55: 458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernando PUE, Viby-Mogensen J, Bonsu AK et al (1987) Relationship between post-tetanic count and response to carinal stimulation during vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 31: 593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jensen FS, Viby-Mogensen J (1995) Plasma cholinesterase and abnormal reaction to succinylcholine: twenty years’ experience with the Danish Cholinesterase Research Unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 39: 150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viby-Mogensen J, Jensen NH, Engbaek J et al (1985) Tactile and visual evaluation of the response to train-of-four stimulation. Anesthesiology 63: 440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engbaek J, Østergaard D, Viby-Mogensen J (1989) Double-burst stimulation (DBS): a new pattern of nerve stimulation to identify residual neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth 62: 274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drenck NE, Ueda N, Olsen NV et al (1989) Manual evaluation using double-burst stimulation: a comparison with train-of-four. Anesthesiology 70: 578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Viby-Mogensen J, Chraemmer-Jorgensen B, Ørding H (1979) Residual curarization in the recovery room. Anesthesiology 50: 539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lennmarken C, Lofstrom B (1984) Partial curarization in the postoperative period. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 28: 260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beemer GH, Rozental P et al (1986) Postoperative neuromuscular function. Anesth Intensive Care 14: 41Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bevan DR, Smith CE, Donati F (1988) Postoperative neuromuscular blockade: a comparison between atracurium, vecuronium and pancuronium. Anesthesiology 69: 272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jensen E, Viby-Mogensen J, Bang U (1988) The accelograph: a new neuromuscular transmission analyzer. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 32: 49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mortensen CR, Berg H, El-Mahdy A, Viby-Mogensen J (1995) Perioperative monitoring of neuromuscular function using acceleromyography prevents residual block following pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Viby-Mogensen J (1994) Neuromuscular monitoring. In: Miller RD (ed) Anesthesia, 4th edn. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Viby-Mogensen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations