Train-of-Four Stimulation for Adductor Pollicis Neuromuscular Monitoring Can Be Applied at the Wrist or Over the Hand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Adductor pollicis stimulation over the ulnar nerve at the wrist is the standard method of monitoring neuromuscular function. Stimulation over a muscle is believed to cause direct muscle contraction, but evidence for this is lacking. In this study we sought to determine whether direct muscle stimulation occurred during stimulation of the adductor pollicis in the hand and whether the responses were comparable to those observed with stimulation at the wrist. In 20 patients anesthetized with sevoflurane, 1 pair of stimulating electrodes was positioned over the ulnar nerve at the wrist. A second pair was placed between the first and second metacarpals on the palmar and dorsal aspects of the hand. The acceleromyographic response was monitored. Rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg was administered. Train-of-four (TOF) stimulations were applied at the wrist site until maximal blockade. Then, stimulation was applied to the hand site. During recovery, both sites were monitored alternately. After injection of rocuronium, 17 of 20 patients showed no twitch response at either site. One patient had a response at both stimulation sites, and two patients had responses only at the wrist site. With a Bland and Altman analysis, TOF ratios during recovery at the hand showed a bias of 0.5% and limits of agreement of ±11.8% as compared with the wrist. Stimulation in the hand causes no direct muscle stimulation because the response is no more than that produced by stimulation at the wrist. Both sites yield comparable TOF ratios. IMPLICATIONS: Adductor pollicis monitoring is usually performed by applying electrodes over the ulnar nerve at the wrist. An alternative is to stimulate over the muscle itself in the hand. Train-of-four ratios at the hand and the wrist are comparable, and direct muscle stimulation does not occur.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".