A Cross-Sectional survey on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices of Neuromuscular Monitoring among Indian Anesthesiologists

Sonal Goyal; Bhavna Gupta

doi:10.18502/aacc.v9i1.11939

Sonal Goyal Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.
Bhavna Gupta Department of Anesthesia, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, India.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v9i1.11939

Keywords: Block; Neuromuscular; Agents; Neuromuscular nondepolarizing; Survey methods; Design; Questionnaire; Awakening; Post anesthesia; Delayed

Abstract

Background: The utility of Neuromuscular monitoring (NMT) has not been studied in Indian scenario till date. We did a survey to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, practices of NMT among Indian anesthesiologists.

Methods: A questionnaire-based google form was sent to 350 anesthesiologists over 3-months. Demographic data was collected in initial questions, followed by data on their concepts, practices, and knowledge of NMT and postoperative residual nerve block (PRNB). Data were descriptively analysed using frequencies and percentages. Descriptive statistical testing was done using software package IBM SPSS 23.

Results: 88.9% of participants reported the use of clinical assessment. Though majority used clinical parameters, they were well-versed about Train-of-Four criteria. 75.9% stated the use of objective NMT in < 25 % of patients. The reasons for not using objective monitoring were scarcity of neuromuscular monitors, non-familiarity, and complexity of monitors. In regards to PRNB, 79.6 % participants considered PRNB to be an important clinical issue. Although in their clinical practice they rarely encountered PRNB, 74% responded that routine NMT can decrease PRNB. The cross-tabulation table reflected that the use of objective tools (P= 0.014), knowledge about the essentiality of NMT (p=0.003), correctly stating PRNB as an important clinical issue (p=0.006), and their understanding about unreliability of clinical tests (p=0.001) showed significant improvement with increasing anesthesia experience.

Conclusion: Participants showed great understanding of clinical and qualitative tests but not of quantitative tests, with low rate of usage of objective NMT. A lacuna in understanding of quantitative parameters must be addressed considering high incidence of PRNB and lack of sensitivity of clinical parameters.