Stewart P A, Freelander N, Liang S, Heller G, Phillips S
Department of Anaesthesia, Sydney Adventist Hospital, Wahroonga, New South Wales, Australia, and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014 May;42(3):378-84. doi: 10.1177/0310057X1404200316.
In this study, two commercially available quantitative neuromuscular function monitoring techniques, electromyography (EMG) and kinemyography (KMG), were compared with respect to repeatability and accuracy during late recovery from neuromuscular blockade. Train-of-four (TOF) ratios were recorded in 30 patients using KMG and EMG at the adductor pollicis muscle. Measurements were taken on the same hand using the Datex-Ohmeda NeuroMuscular Transmission monitor (GE Healthcare, Helsinki, Finland). Instrumental precision was evaluated using the coefficient of repeatability, while accuracy was assessed using the bias and limits of agreement. The coefficients of repeatability were similar for both techniques (0.035 for KMG and 0.043 for EMG), indicating a similar level of precision. KMG overestimated the TOF ratios measured with EMG with a bias of 0.11 (95% limits of agreement: -0.13 to 0.35). At a TOF ratio of 0.90 the bias was 0.08 (95% limits of agreement: -0.08 to 0.25). This means that at a TOF ratio of 0.90 measured with KMG will be approximately equivalent to a TOF ratio of 0.80 measured with EMG at the adductor pollicis muscle, but it may indeed be as low as 0.65 or as high as 1.00. Therefore, TOF ratios measured by KMG and EMG cannot be used interchangeably.
在本研究中,对两种市售的定量神经肌肉功能监测技术——肌电图(EMG)和运动肌电图(KMG)——在神经肌肉阻滞后期恢复过程中的重复性和准确性进行了比较。在30例患者的拇收肌处使用KMG和EMG记录四个成串刺激(TOF)比值。使用Datex-Ohmeda神经肌肉传递监测仪(通用电气医疗集团,芬兰赫尔辛基)在同一只手上进行测量。使用重复性系数评估仪器精度,同时使用偏差和一致性界限评估准确性。两种技术的重复性系数相似(KMG为0.035,EMG为0.043),表明精度水平相似。KMG高估了用EMG测量的TOF比值,偏差为0.11(95%一致性界限:-0.13至0.35)。在TOF比值为0.90时,偏差为0.08(95%一致性界限:-0.08至0.25)。这意味着在拇收肌处,用KMG测量的TOF比值为0.90时大约相当于用EMG测量的TOF比值为0.80,但实际上可能低至0.65或高至1.00。因此,KMG和EMG测量的TOF比值不能互换使用。