Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring: Electromyography Monitor Versus Peripheral Nerve Stimulator. Does the Face Lie?

IF 0.5
Journal of medical cases Pub Date : 2026-03-04 eCollection Date: 2026-04-01 DOI:10.14740/jmc5267
Edison E Villalobos, Stephania Paredes Padilla, Sorin J Brull, Joseph D Tobias
{"title":"Intraoperative Neuromuscular Monitoring: Electromyography Monitor Versus Peripheral Nerve Stimulator. Does the Face Lie?","authors":"Edison E Villalobos, Stephania Paredes Padilla, Sorin J Brull, Joseph D Tobias","doi":"10.14740/jmc5267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During intraoperative anesthetic care, the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) may be required to facilitate endotracheal intubation or provide ongoing skeletal muscle relaxation during surgical procedures. Assessments of the train-of-four (TOF) responses may be used to judge the adequacy of block and the need for redosing of NMBAs. The TOF evaluation can be performed qualitatively, by manual palpation or visual evaluation of the twitch response, or quantitatively, by using devices that measure the amplitude of the twitches. As an operator-dependent technique, qualitative techniques are prone to error, particularly in pediatric patients, and are not sensitive enough to detect a clinically significant TOF fade, which may increase the risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block. We present a pediatric case of intraoperative neuromuscular monitoring that demonstrates discrepancies between an electromyography (EMG)-based quantitative monitor and qualitative TOF assessments using a peripheral nerve stimulator. The different sensitivities between respiratory and peripheral muscles to NMBAs, as well as the difference between qualitative and quantitative TOF monitoring are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":101328,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical cases","volume":"17 4","pages":"163-169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12978405/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical cases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/jmc5267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During intraoperative anesthetic care, the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) may be required to facilitate endotracheal intubation or provide ongoing skeletal muscle relaxation during surgical procedures. Assessments of the train-of-four (TOF) responses may be used to judge the adequacy of block and the need for redosing of NMBAs. The TOF evaluation can be performed qualitatively, by manual palpation or visual evaluation of the twitch response, or quantitatively, by using devices that measure the amplitude of the twitches. As an operator-dependent technique, qualitative techniques are prone to error, particularly in pediatric patients, and are not sensitive enough to detect a clinically significant TOF fade, which may increase the risk of postoperative residual neuromuscular block. We present a pediatric case of intraoperative neuromuscular monitoring that demonstrates discrepancies between an electromyography (EMG)-based quantitative monitor and qualitative TOF assessments using a peripheral nerve stimulator. The different sensitivities between respiratory and peripheral muscles to NMBAs, as well as the difference between qualitative and quantitative TOF monitoring are discussed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

术中神经肌肉监测:肌电图监测器与周围神经刺激器。脸会说谎吗?
在术中麻醉护理过程中,可能需要使用神经肌肉阻滞剂(nmba)来促进气管插管或在手术过程中提供持续的骨骼肌放松。对四人组(TOF)反应的评估可用于判断阻塞的充分性和重新给药nmba的必要性。TOF评估可以定性地进行,通过手触诊或抽动反应的视觉评估,或定量地进行,通过使用测量抽动幅度的设备。定性技术作为一种依赖于操作者的技术,容易出现错误,特别是在儿科患者中,并且不够敏感,无法检测到临床上显著的TOF消退,这可能会增加术后残留神经肌肉阻滞的风险。我们报告了一例术中神经肌肉监测的儿科病例,该病例显示了基于肌电图(EMG)的定量监测与使用周围神经刺激器的定性TOF评估之间的差异。讨论了呼吸肌和外周肌对nmba的不同敏感性,以及定性和定量TOF监测的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书