MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intramuscular Versus Surface Electromyography of the Diaphragm for Determining Neuromuscular Blockade

2001· article· en· W2072327367 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas M. Hemmerling, Joachim Schmidt, Tobias Wolf, Christian Hanusa, Ernst Siebzehnruebl, Hubert J. Schmitt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectromyographyDiaphragm (acoustics)Diaphragmatic breathingNeuromuscular BlockadeAnesthesiaNeuromuscular monitoringStimulationAnalysis of varianceRepeated measures designInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined the neuromuscular blockade of 0.2 mg. kg(-1) mivacurium at the diaphragm by using two new methods of electromyographic (EMG) monitoring and compared it with acceleromyography of the orbicularis oculi (OO) and the corrugator supercilii (CS) muscle. After the induction of anesthesia in 15 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery, evoked EMG responses at the diaphragm were obtained by using skin electrodes at the back of the patient, placed lateral to T12/L1 or L1/L2, and a laparoscopically applied wire electrode inserted into the dorsolateral portion of the diaphragm. Acceleromyography at the right OO and the left CS was performed. The facial and phrenic nerves were stimulated transcutaneously (onset: every 10 s, offset: every 15 s, single twitch stimulation). Lag and onset time, peak effect, and clinical duration (time to reach 75% of control value and time to reach 90% of control value) were measured and the results were compared by using analysis of variance; P < 0.05 showed significant difference. Pearson's correlation test and the Bland-Altman test were used to compare the two diaphragmatic monitoring methods. Mean peak effects of >98% were reached at all sites. Onset times at diaphragm (skin, IM) were significantly (P < 0.005) shorter than at the CS or OO (100 +/- 14 s and 98 +/- 16 s vs 147 +/- 39 s, 185 +/- 38 s) without being statistically different between OO and CS. There was a good correlation of lag, onset time, time to reach 75% of control value, and time to reach 90% of control value (r = 0.8, 0.9, 0.8, and 0.75; P < 0.01) between the two diaphragmatic methods. Mean difference and limits of agreements are -2 +/- 15 s, 1 +/- 21 s, -1 +/- 2.3 min, and -2 +/- 3.4 min. We showed a shorter onset and clinical duration at the diaphragm in comparison with CS and OO. Two methods of EMG of the diaphragm correlated well and showed good comparability. The novel method of surface diaphragmatic EMG at the patient's back may be useful during routine clinical anesthesia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207