Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2024
A novel stimulating electrode attachment method designed to maintain electromyography-based neuromuscular monitoring detectability during laparoscopic surgery: a single-center randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study.
Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remimazolam for Zephyr Endobronchial Valve Placement in a Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- From revival to routine: electromyography-based neuromuscular monitoring in contemporary anesthesia practice.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
- Relationship Between Muscle Tone and Elasticity: Simultaneous Quantitative Assessment Using Train-of-Four Monitoring and Continuous Shear Wave Elastography During Anesthesia Induction-A Prospective Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the electromyography (EMG)-based neuromuscular monitoring detectability of our novel stimulating electrode attachment method compared to the original Nihon-Kohden (Tokyo, Japan) attachment method.
methodsThis single-center randomized, double-blind, controlled pilot study enrolled 32 patients aged ≥ 18 years, undergoing scheduled laparoscopic surgery. The EMG electrode NM-345Y™ was attached to one forearm using the Nihon-Kohden method (Pattern N-K) and the other forearm using our novel method (Pattern Cross). The allocation to each attachment method was determined post-randomization. In Pattern Cross, the NM-345Y™ was attached such that the line connecting the anode and cathode crosses the ulnar nerve. Patients received 0.9 mg/kg rocuronium after calibration with the forearm in 90-degree supination. Following tracheal intubation, the forearm was positioned in 0-degree pronation. Intraoperatively, 0.2 mg/kg rocuronium was administered if the train-of-four (TOF) count one persisted for 1 min on either side. Post-surgery, the forearm position was returned to 90-degree supination, and rocuronium was antagonized with sugammadex. TOF and post-tetanic count (PTC) were simultaneously measured bilaterally every 15 s and 5 min, respectively, from post-calibration to tracheal extubation.
resultsThe time to first PTC appearance was significantly shorter by 33 min in the Pattern Cross group than in the Pattern N-K group (95% Confidence interval: 1-66, p = 0.043). Following sugammadex administration, TOF ratios ≥ 0.9 were achieved in 72% of patients in the Pattern N-K group and 97% of those in the Pattern Cross group (p = 0.025).
conclusionsCrossing the line connecting the anode and cathode with the ulnar nerve stabilizes EMG-based neuromuscular monitoring detectability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39214897What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.