Neuromuscular Blockade
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of the study is the examine the precision of acceleromyography and mechanomyography during recovery from a neuromuscular blocking agent and to examine whether there is any difference in monitoring block at the dominant or non-dominant arm. Our hypothesis is that there is no significant difference in neither the precision nor the level of block in the contralateral arms.
Interventions
DEVICETOF-Watch SX (neuromuscular monitor)
The variation between arms (dominant or non-dominant) when monitored with the same method on both arms
Sponsors
Rigshospitalet, Denmark
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Inclusion criteria
* ASA I-III * General anesthesia \>1 hour * Surgery in supine position w. possibility of monitoring the neuromuscular block at both arms (n. ulnaris stimulation/thumb response) * Written informed content
Exclusion criteria
* Neuromuscular disorders, hepatic and renal dysfunction * Medication expected to interfere with the neuromuscular blocking agent * Allergy to any medication used during anaesthesia * Body weight less or exceeding 20% of ideal body weight * Pregnancy or breastfeeding
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Precision at the contralateral arms using the average residual coefficient of variation over subsequent linear regressions (detrending) over time | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| T1 height at reappearance of T1-T4 | — |
| Time to T1=25% | — |
| Bias and limits of agreement between control TOF, reappearance of T1, T2, T3, T4 | — |
| Time to TOF 0.9 and 1.0 with and without normalization | — |
| Time to stable T1 and stable TOF | — |
| Interval 25-75% | — |
Countries
Denmark
Outcome results
None listed