Comparison of electromyography and kinemyography during recovery from non-depolarising neuromuscular blockade

P. A. Stewart, N. Freelander, S. Liang, G. Heller, S. Phillips

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    17 Citations (Scopus)


    In this study, two commercially available quantitative neuromuscular function monitoring techniques, electromyography (EMG) and kinemyography (KMG), were compared with respect to repeatability and accuracy during late recovery from neuromuscular blockade. Train-of-four (TOF) ratios were recorded in 30 patients using KMG and EMG at the adductor pollicis muscle. Measurements were taken on the same hand using the Datex-Ohmeda NeuroMuscular Transmission monitor (GE Healthcare, Helsinki, Finland). Instrumental precision was evaluated using the coefficient of repeatability, while accuracy was assessed using the bias and limits of agreement. The coefficients of repeatability were similar for both techniques (0.035 for KMG and 0.043 for EMG), indicating a similar level of precision. KMG overestimated the TOF ratios measured with EMG with a bias of 0.11 (95% limits of agreement: -0.13 to 0.35). At a TOF ratio of 0.90 the bias was 0.08 (95% limits of agreement: -0.08 to 0.25). This means that at a TOF ratio of 0.90 measured with KMG will be approximately equivalent to a TOF ratio of 0.80 measured with EMG at the adductor pollicis muscle, but it may indeed be as low as 0.65 or as high as 1.00. Therefore, TOF ratios measured by KMG and EMG cannot be used interchangeably.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)378-384
    Number of pages7
    JournalAnaesthesia and Intensive Care
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - May 2014


    • kinemyography
    • electromyography
    • quantitative neuromuscular function monitoring
    • ElectroSensor
    • MechanoSensor


    Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of electromyography and kinemyography during recovery from non-depolarising neuromuscular blockade'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this