Weber S, Muravchick S
J Clin Monit. 1987 Jan;3(1):1-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00770874.
To compare recovery time from neuromuscular blockade after the administration of a single intravenous bolus of succinylcholine (1 mg/kg), we measured, both mechanically and electromyographically, the evoked twitch responses in the hand muscles of 10 patients. Electromyographic data were obtained, electronically integrated, and recorded by a newly available clinical monitoring device. Using both the mechanical and the electromyographic devices, we recorded the times for first return of twitch, as well as for 25% and 75% recovery of twitch height compared with prerelaxant twitch baseline values and compared the values by calculating least-squares regression lines. Times given by the electromyographic device for these measures of returning neuromuscular function were notably longer than those given by the mechanical evoked force monitor. No such findings have been reported in previous studies that compared these two techniques for monitoring of muscle recovery from nondepolarizing relaxants. The specific reasons for the differences found in this study are unknown.
为比较单次静脉推注琥珀酰胆碱(1mg/kg)后神经肌肉阻滞的恢复时间,我们对10例患者手部肌肉的诱发抽搐反应进行了机械和肌电图测量。肌电图数据通过电子整合,并由一种新的临床监测设备记录。使用机械和肌电图设备,我们记录了抽搐首次恢复的时间,以及与松弛前抽搐基线值相比抽搐高度恢复25%和75%的时间,并通过计算最小二乘回归线比较了这些值。肌电图设备给出的这些神经肌肉功能恢复指标的时间明显长于机械诱发力监测器给出的时间。以前比较这两种监测非去极化松弛剂后肌肉恢复技术的研究中未报告过此类发现。本研究中发现差异的具体原因尚不清楚。