• Iben Foss Sorgenfrei, Jørgen Viby-Mogensen, and Frans Aa Swiatek.
• H:S Rigshospitalet, Afdelingen for Uddannelse, Forskning og Udvikling i Anaestesiologi, HovedOrtoCentret, Anaestesi- og Operationsklinikken, og Abdominalcentret, Anaestesiologiafdelingen. sorgenfrei@dadlnet.dk
• Ugeskr. Laeg. 2005 Oct 10; 167 (41): 3878-82.

BackgroundRecent studies have shown a high incidence of postoperative residual curarization (PORC). The reason for this is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the methods used by Danish anaesthetists to exclude PORC are evidence-based and, if they are not, to determine the reasons why.Methods251 anaesthetists (nurses and physicians) from eight different hospital anaesthetic departments completed a questionnaire concerning their knowledge about and clinical practice of residual curarization.ResultsAll of the 251 participants filled in the questionnaire. 91% underestimated the incidence of PORC after the administration of intermediate-acting muscle relaxants, and 27% incorrectly believed that it is always possible to exclude PORC using clinical tests. Only 45% knew that the train-of-four ratio must exceed 0.9 to exclude residual curarization, and only 25% knew that clinically significant residual curarization cannot be excluded by tactile/visual evaluation of the response to train-of-four nerve stimulation. 91% had access to a nerve stimulator, 85% with the option of objective monitoring. 13% used a nerve stimulator seldom or never. The overall attitude toward using nerve stimulators was positive.ConclusionThe results indicate that Danish anaesthetists" clinical practice regarding residual curarization is often not evidence-based. The reason for this seems to be a lack of knowledge, rather than lack of resources and/or a negative attitude toward neuromuscular monitoring.

17 keywords...

hide…