4.6 Review

Residual Neuromuscular Block: Lessons Unlearned. Part II: Methods to Reduce the Risk of Residual Weakness

Journal

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
Volume 111, Issue 1, Pages 129-140

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181da8312

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, North Shore University Health System and Mayo Clinic College of Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the second part of this review is to examine optimal neuromuscular management strategies that can be used by clinicians to reduce the risk of residual paralysis in the early postoperative period. Current evidence has demonstrated that frequently used clinical tests of neuromuscular function (such as head lift or hand grip) cannot reliably exclude the presence of residual paralysis. When qualitative (visual or tactile) neuromuscular monitoring is used (train-of-four [TOR double-burst, or tetanic stimulation patterns), clinicians often are unable to detect fade when TOF ratios are between 0.6 and 1.0. Furthermore, the effect of qualitative monitoring on postoperative residual paralysis remains controversial. In contrast, there is strong evidence that acceleromyography (quantitative) monitoring improves detection of small degrees (TOF ratios >0.6) of residual blockade. The use of intermediate-acting neuromuscular blocking drugs (NMBDs) can reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of residual paralysis when compared with long-acting NMBDs. In addition, complete recovery of neuromuscular function is more likely when anticholinesterases are administered early (>15-20 minutes before tracheal extubation) and at a shallower depth of block (TOF count of 4). Finally, the recent development of rapid-onset, short-acting NMBDs and selective neuromuscular reversal drugs that can effectively antagonize deep levels of blockade may provide clinicians with novel pharmacologic approaches for the prevention of postoperative residual weakness and its associated complications. (Anesth Analg 2010;111:129-40)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available