Key result
Despite the availability of quantitative neuromuscular monitoring techniques, most anesthesiologists continue to rely on qualitative assessment or no monitoring at all.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OVER the last years, a growing body of information has accumulated in the anesthesia literature about the advantages and pitfalls of various techniques used for quantitatively monitoring neuromuscular function in routine anesthetic practice and the associated incidence (and consequences) of residual neuromuscular block in the postoperative period. Many methods are available, ranging from quantitative strain-gauge techniques, electromyography, acceleromyography, phonomyography, etc. However, quantitative techniques are not widely used, with most anesthesiologists relying on visual or tactile assessment of the train-of-four (TOF) ratio, or, in many cases, no neuromuscular monitoring at all. One argument for such qualitative approaches to monitoring is that with modern short and intermediate acting relaxants, residual paralysis is not a clinical problem or, even if patients are not completely reversed by the end of the case, the block will dissipate in a few minutes. Another approach is "reverse everyone," which is viewed by some as uniformly easy, safe, and effective for patients given these agents.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the gap between evidence supporting quantitative neuromuscular monitoring and its actual clinical adoption in anesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lars I. Eriksson (2003) conducted an editorial in Neuromuscular block during anesthesia. Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring vs. Qualitative assessment or no monitoring was evaluated. Despite the availability of quantitative neuromuscular monitoring techniques, most anesthesiologists continue to rely on qualitative assessment or no monitoring at all.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: