JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.
Right arrow Articles by Beemer, G. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.
Right arrow Articles by Beemer, G. H.
Anesth Analg 1999;88:197-203
© 1999 International Anesthesia Research Society

GENERAL ARTICLES

Common Peroneal Nerve Stimulation for Neuromuscular Monitoring: Evaluation in Awake Volunteers and Anesthetized Patients

Kate Leslie, MD, FANZCA, Colin C. Iatrou, MB, BS, Karin Jones, MB, BS, and Geoffrey H. Beemer, MD, FANZCA

Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Address correspondence to Dr. Kate Leslie, Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, 3050, Australia.

The study was conducted in two parts. First, evoked responses to common peroneal nerve stimulation at four electrode positions were tested in 25 awake volunteers. The initial threshold stimulus current (ITS) (minimal current producing dorsiflexion or eversion of the ankle joint and great toe) and the supramaximal stimulus current (SMS) (the point at which further increases in current did not produce increases in twitch tension) were defined. SMS was not reliably achieved using electrodes at each side of the fibular head. However, an exploratory electrode accurately located the nerve and enabled SMS in all volunteers (SMS/ITS = 3.4). Second, 16 anesthetized, paralyzed patients were studied. The common peroneal and ulnar nerves were stimulated simultaneously. Evoked tension was recorded at the adductor pollicis using a force transducer and at the great toe by a blinded observer. Reversal was given when the train-of-four count at the great toe reached four. Onset times were longer, and median posttetanic counts were greater, at the great toe compared with the adductor pollicis. Time from reversal to train-of-four ratio = 0.7 at the adductor pollicis was 207 ± 160 s. We conclude that neuromuscular monitoring at the common peroneal nerve was not equivalent to monitoring at the ulnar nerve.

Implications: Accurate neuromuscular monitoring is important for patient safety. We studied the accuracy of monitoring at the common peroneal nerve in volunteers and patients. An exploratory electrode accurately located the common peroneal nerve. Monitoring at the common peroneal nerve was not equivalent to monitoring at the ulnar nerve in patients.






Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 1999 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.