Department of Anaesthesia 4231, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Sep;105(3):310-7. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq162. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
Studies comparing acceleromyography and mechanomyography indicate that the two methods cannot be used interchangeably. However, it is uncertain to what extent differences in precision between the methods and the naturally occurring arm-to-arm variation have influenced the results of these studies. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the precision and the arm-to-arm variation, when the same method is used on both of the arms.
In the first part (n=20), mechanomyography was applied bilaterally and in the second part acceleromyography (n=20). Anaesthesia was induced with propofol and opioid, and neuromuscular block with rocuronium 0.6 mg kg(-1). The precision of the two methods and the bias and limits of agreement between the arms were evaluated using train-of-four (TOF) stimulation, without and with referral to the initial baseline value, that is, normalization.
Both methods were found to be precise (<5% variation) without any difference between the dominant and non-dominant arms. There were no significant biases between the arms, except for the onset time obtained with acceleromyography, which was 10% longer for the dominant arm. However, the individual differences (limits of agreement) were wide (0.20-0.25 at TOF 0.90). Normalization during recovery did not change bias or limits of agreement between the arms.
In the research setting, acceleromyography and mechanomyography are both precise methods without difference between the arms. Although there is no mean bias between the arms, both methods show wide individual differences (limits of agreement), which might to a large extend explain the differences often found when two different methods are compared on the contralateral arms. ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00472121; URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00472121.
比较肌动描记术和肌音描记术的研究表明,这两种方法不能互换使用。然而,尚不确定方法之间的精度差异以及手臂之间的自然变化在多大程度上影响了这些研究的结果。因此,本研究的目的是检验在同一方法应用于双臂时的精度和手臂间的变化。
在第一部分(n=20)中,双侧应用肌音描记术,在第二部分(n=20)中应用肌动描记术。异丙酚和阿片类药物诱导麻醉,罗库溴铵 0.6mg/kg(-1)诱导神经肌肉阻滞。使用四串刺激(TOF)评估两种方法的精度以及手臂间的偏差和一致性界限,不考虑初始基线值,即归一化。
两种方法均表现出较高的精度(<5%的变化),且优势臂和非优势臂之间无差异。手臂之间无显著偏差,除了肌动描记术获得的起始时间,优势臂长 10%。然而,个体差异(一致性界限)较大(TOF 0.90 时为 0.20-0.25)。恢复过程中的归一化并未改变手臂之间的偏差或一致性界限。
在研究环境中,肌动描记术和肌音描记术均为精确方法,且手臂之间无差异。尽管手臂之间没有平均偏差,但两种方法均显示出较大的个体差异(一致性界限),这在很大程度上可以解释当使用两种不同的方法比较对侧手臂时经常发现的差异。临床试验注册号:NCT00472121;网址:http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00472121。