Literature DB >> 30130260

Comparison of the TOFscan and the TOF-Watch SX during Recovery of Neuromuscular Function.

Glenn S Murphy1, Joseph W Szokol, Michael J Avram, Steven B Greenberg, Torin D Shear, Mark Deshur, Jessica Benson, Rebecca L Newmark, Colleen E Maher.   

Abstract

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW:
BACKGROUND: : Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is required to ensure neuromuscular function has recovered completely at the time of tracheal extubation. The TOFscan (Drager Technologies, Canada) is a new three-dimensional acceleromyography device that measures movement of the thumb in multiple planes. The aim of this observational investigation was to assess the agreement between nonnormalized and normalized train-of-four values obtained with the TOF-Watch SX (Organon, Ireland) and those obtained with the TOFscan during recovery from neuromuscular blockade.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients were administered rocuronium, and spontaneous recovery of neuromuscular blockade was allowed to occur. The TOFscan and TOF-Watch SX devices were applied to opposite arms. A preload was applied to the TOF-Watch SX, and calibration was performed before rocuronium administration. Both devices were activated, and train-of-four values were obtained every 15 s. Modified Bland-Altman analyses were conducted to compare train-of-four ratios measured with the TOFscan to those measured with the TOF-Watch SX (when train-of-four thresholds of 0.2 to 1.0 were achieved).
RESULTS: Bias and 95% limits of agreement between the TOF-Watch SX and the TOFscan at nonnormalized train-of-four ratios between 0.2 and 1.0 were 0.021 and -0.100 to 0.141, respectively. When train-of-four measures with the TOF-Watch SX were normalized, bias and 95% limits of agreement between the TOF-Watch SX and the TOFscan at ratios between 0.2 and 1.0 were 0.015 and -0.097 to 0.126, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Good agreement between the TOF-Watch SX with calibration and preload application and the uncalibrated TOFscan was observed throughout all stages of neuromuscular recovery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30130260     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002400

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  7 in total

Review 1.  [Algorithm-based preventive strategies for avoidance of residual neuromuscular blocks].

Authors:  C Unterbuchner; K Ehehalt; B Graf
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  The latest trend in neuromuscular monitoring: return of the electromyography.

Authors:  Wonjin Lee
Journal:  Anesth Pain Med (Seoul)       Date:  2021-04-12

3.  A comparison of a prototype electromyograph vs. a mechanomyograph and an acceleromyograph for assessment of neuromuscular blockade.

Authors:  A Bowdle; L Bussey; K Michaelsen; S Jelacic; B Nair; K Togashi; J Hulvershorn
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 6.955

4.  Comparison of neuromuscular blockade recovery co-administered with neostigmine and different doses of calcium gluconate: a randomized control trial.

Authors:  So Ron Choi; Jeong Ho Kim; Kyung Hyun Lee; Sang Yoong Park
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Neuromuscular block in patients 80 years and older: a prospective, controlled study.

Authors:  Denis Schmartz; Raouf Sghaier; Paul Bernard; Jean François Fils; Thomas Fuchs-Buder
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  Comparison of the TOFscan and the TOF-Watch SX during pediatric neuromuscular function recovery: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Hyung-Been Yhim; Young-Eun Jang; Ji-Hyun Lee; Eun-Hee Kim; Jin-Tae Kim; Hee-Soo Kim
Journal:  Perioper Med (Lond)       Date:  2021-12-10

7.  Assessment of the New Acceleromyograph TOF 3D Compared with the Established TOF Watch SX: Bland-Altman Analysis of the Precision and Limits of Agreement between Both Devices-A Randomized Clinical Comparison.

Authors:  Stefan Soltesz; Jan Thomas; Michael Anapolski; Guenter Karl Noé
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 4.964

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.