This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Leslie, K. Articles by Beemer, G. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Leslie, K. Articles by Beemer, G. H.

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

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

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.