Comparison of Phonomyography Prototype With Train-of-Four Watch SX for Neuromuscular Monitoring: A Prospective Observational Study
Authors' conclusion
When non-depolarizing NMBs were administered, the PMG prototype measured a significantly longer onset and a shorter recovery time compared with TOF-Watch SX. The same trend was also found when depolarizing NMBs were administered. The PMG prototype is clinical feasible and stable but not interchangeable with TOF-Watch SX.
Study context
- Population
- Surgical patients receiving non-depolarizing (cisatracurium, vecuronium) or depolarizing (succinylcholine) NMBs80 analysed
- Participants
- 102 patients
- Exposure
- Phonomyography (PMG) prototype vs TOF-Watch SX
- Outcome
- Onset time and full recovery time, non-depolarizing NMBs
Methodological detailssingle-centre, method comparison
- Single-centre
- Method comparison
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Onset time, Group C; median 210 [IQR 180-240] vs 150 [135-180] seconds
- mean bias 48 (CI 40–55); P < 0.001
- Onset time, Group V; mean 197 ± 48 vs 159 ± 36 seconds
- mean bias 38 (CI 28–48); P < 0.001
- Full recovery time, Group C; 4014 ± 511 vs 5072 ± 713 seconds
- mean bias −1058 (CI −1215 to −901); P < 0.001
- Full recovery time, Group V; 3352 ± 791 vs 4931 ± 902 seconds
- mean bias −1084 (CI −1237 to −931); P < 0.001
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Onset time, depolarizing NMBs (Group S, succinylcholine): PMG prototype vs TOF-Watch SX
- Onset time, mean ± SD, PMG prototype vs TOF-Watch SX
- 94 ± 26 seconds vs 80 ± 25 seconds
- P value
- P < 0.001
- Mean bias
- 15 [10-19]
- Results similar to non-depolarizing NMBs
Full recovery time, depolarizing NMBs (Group S, succinylcholine): PMG prototype vs TOF-Watch SX
- Full recovery time, mean ± SD, PMG prototype vs TOF-Watch SX
- 447 ± 126 seconds vs 689 ± 223 seconds
- P value
- P < 0.001
- Mean bias
- −242 [−294 to −191]
Original publication
Comparison of Phonomyography Prototype With Train-of-Four Watch SX for Neuromuscular Monitoring: A Prospective Observational Study. Anesth Analg. Published 31 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →