Acceleromyography Versus Electromyography for Neuromuscular Recovery Assessment at the End of Surgery

Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is recommended to reduce the incidence of residual neuromuscular blockade and its associated postoperative complications. Although electromyography is considered the current clinical reference method for objective neuromuscular monitoring, acceleromyography remains the most commonly used technique in routine clinical practice because of its availability, lower cost, and ease of use. However, acceleromyography may overestimate neuromuscular recovery, particularly when baseline normalization is not performed.

This prospective observational diagnostic agreement study will enroll adult patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia requiring administration of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents. At the end of surgery, before administration of neuromuscular blockade reversal agents, simultaneous train-of-four (TOF) ratio measurements will be obtained using acceleromyography and electromyography. Acceleromyography will be performed according to routine clinical practice without baseline normalization, while electromyography will serve as the reference method.

The primary objective is to evaluate the agreement between acceleromyography and electromyography measurements obtained at the end of surgery. Secondary objectives include estimating the mean bias between methods, calculating the 95% limits of agreement using Bland-Altman analysis, evaluating proportional bias, and determining the proportion of patients in whom acceleromyography indicates adequate neuromuscular recovery (TOF ≥0.9) while electromyography demonstrates residual neuromuscular blockade (TOF <0.9).

Demographic, clinical, and anesthetic variables will also be collected. Approximately 70 participants are expected to be enrolled.