Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring: Why Are We Still Guessing at Recovery?

Introduction

Neuromuscular blockade is an essential component of modern anesthetic practice, facilitating optimal surgical conditions by improving muscle relaxation, facilitating tracheal intubation, and minimizing patient movement during operative procedures. The introduction of neuromuscular blocking agents has remarkably enhanced the safety and effectiveness of anesthesia across a wide range of surgical specialties. However, despite substantial advances in anesthetic pharmacology and reversal strategies, complete recovery from neuromuscular blockade remains a persistent challenge in perioperative medicine. Residual neuromuscular weakness continues to occur more frequently than previously appreciated and remains an important contributor to postoperative respiratory complications, delayed recovery, and increased healthcare utilization.

Traditionally, assessment of neuromuscular recovery has relied heavily on clinical observation. Patients who appear awake, breathe spontaneously, demonstrate adequate tidal volumes, sustain a head lift, hand grip, or tongue protrusion, and follow verbal commands are often assumed to have recovered sufficiently for safe extubation. While these bedside assessments may identify profound neuromuscular paralysis, they lack the sensitivity required to detect more subtle but clinically significant degrees of residual blockade. Consequently, reliance on subjective clinical examination alone may create a false sense of security regarding neuromuscular recovery.

The critical issue is not whether experienced anesthesiologists can recognize severe paralysis. Profound neuromuscular blockade is generally apparent through obvious clinical signs, including the inability to initiate spontaneous ventilation or purposeful movement. The more clinically relevant question is whether bedside assessment can accurately identify the smaller degrees of residual weakness that persist during emergence from anesthesia and the immediate postoperative period. Accumulating evidence consistently demonstrates that clinical examination alone cannot reliably distinguish complete neuromuscular recovery from residual blockade, particularly when train of four ratios approach values traditionally considered acceptable for extubation.

Residual neuromuscular blockade is increasingly recognized as a spectrum rather than an all or none phenomenon. Even modest degrees of persistent blockade may significantly impair physiological functions essential for safe postoperative recovery. Upper airway muscles are particularly sensitive to incomplete recovery, leading to reduced airway patency and an increased risk of airway obstruction after extubation. Similarly, weakness of the pharyngeal and laryngeal musculature can compromise swallowing and protective airway reflexes, increasing the likelihood of aspiration and postoperative pulmonary complications. Respiratory muscle weakness may reduce inspiratory capacity, impair effective coughing, diminish secretion clearance, and contribute to hypoventilation, atelectasis, hypoxemia, and pneumonia. These complications may occur even in patients who appear clinically alert and cooperative.

In addition to respiratory consequences, residual neuromuscular weakness may adversely affect overall postoperative recovery. Patients frequently experience generalized muscle weakness, impaired mobility, visual disturbances, diplopia, and discomfort that can delay ambulation and prolong recovery room stays. In severe cases, unrecognized residual blockade has been associated with reintubation, unexpected intensive care admission, and increased perioperative morbidity. These findings underscore that apparent clinical recovery does not necessarily equate to complete physiological restoration of neuromuscular function.

Objective neuromuscular monitoring has therefore become an increasingly important standard of care in contemporary anesthetic practice. Quantitative monitoring techniques provide accurate, reproducible measurements of neuromuscular transmission that are not achievable through subjective clinical assessment alone. Acceleromyography, electromyography, kinemyography, and other quantitative monitoring technologies allow clinicians to measure the train of four ratio and objectively determine the degree of neuromuscular recovery. Current evidence indicates that a train of four ratio of at least 0.9, and increasingly values approaching 1.0 depending on the monitoring modality, is associated with substantially lower rates of residual weakness and postoperative respiratory complications.

Professional societies and international anesthesia guidelines now recommend routine quantitative neuromuscular monitoring whenever nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents are administered. These recommendations reflect growing recognition that objective monitoring improves patient safety by guiding appropriate timing of reversal agent administration, optimizing extubation decisions, and confirming complete recovery before transfer from the operating room. Quantitative monitoring also facilitates individualized dosing of reversal agents such as neostigmine and sugammadex, reducing both under reversal and unnecessary drug administration.

The availability of newer reversal agents has further transformed neuromuscular blockade management. Sugammadex, in particular, has demonstrated rapid and predictable reversal of aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agents, even from deep levels of blockade. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of any reversal strategy depends on accurate assessment of the degree of residual blockade before and after drug administration. Objective monitoring therefore remains essential regardless of the pharmacologic agent used for reversal.

Despite strong evidence and evolving clinical guidelines, routine quantitative neuromuscular monitoring remains inconsistently implemented in many healthcare settings. Barriers include limited equipment availability, variability in clinician training, misconceptions regarding the reliability of clinical assessment, and institutional practice patterns. Addressing these barriers through education, standardized protocols, and broader access to monitoring technologies represents an important opportunity to improve perioperative safety and patient outcomes.

Recovery from nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade should therefore be regarded as a measurable physiological parameter rather than a subjective clinical impression. Just as clinicians routinely measure blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and end tidal carbon dioxide to guide perioperative management, neuromuscular recovery should be objectively quantified before extubation and during postoperative recovery. Incorporating quantitative neuromuscular monitoring into routine anesthetic practice provides a more accurate assessment of recovery, reduces the incidence of residual paralysis, and supports safer, evidence based perioperative care.

Why This Topic Matters Now

Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring has been available for decades, yet implementation has lagged behind evidence and guideline recommendations. The gap is clinically important for several reasons.

First, professional guidance has become more explicit. The American Society of Anesthesiologists recommends quantitative monitoring rather than clinical assessment or qualitative monitoring alone, use of the adductor pollicis as the monitoring site, and confirmation of a train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9 before extubation after nondepolarizing neuromuscular blockade (Thilen et al., 2023).

The European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care similarly recommends ulnar nerve stimulation with quantitative monitoring at the adductor pollicis to exclude residual paralysis. When neostigmine-based reversal is used, the guideline recommends advanced spontaneous recovery before administration and continued quantitative monitoring until a train-of-four ratio greater than 0.9 is attained (Fuchs-Buder et al., 2023).

Second, sugammadex has changed reversal practice for aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agents, particularly rocuronium and vecuronium. It has not eliminated the need to measure the depth of block before reversal or to confirm recovery afterward. Underdosing, displacement interactions, recurrent blockade, severe renal impairment, hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, and marked bradycardia remain clinically relevant safety concerns.

Third, perioperative care increasingly involves older adults, medically complex patients, ambulatory procedures, and patients with limited cardiopulmonary reserve. In that setting, residual neuromuscular blockade should be treated as a measurable risk factor rather than an acceptable source of uncertainty.

What Quantitative Monitoring Adds

Qualitative peripheral nerve stimulation can identify the presence or absence of twitches and may reveal obvious fade. Visual or tactile assessment cannot reliably distinguish a train-of-four ratio of approximately 0.7 from one of 0.9.

Clinical signs such as head lift, grip strength, tidal volume, eye opening, tongue protrusion, or apparent respiratory effort are also limited. Their performance depends on sedation level, pain, cooperation, respiratory mechanics, central respiratory drive, and the patient’s baseline strength.

Quantitative monitoring converts recovery into a numeric measurement. Depending on the device, the technology may include acceleromyography, electromyography, kinemyography, or related methods.

Each method has limitations, and none should be treated as infallible. Reliability depends on:

• Correct electrode and sensor placement
• Appropriate monitoring site
• Signal quality
• Stable positioning
• Calibration or normalization when applicable
• Adequate limb movement when acceleromyography is used
• Temperature and peripheral perfusion
• Correct interpretation of the displayed value

The clinical direction remains clear: a valid objective measurement is more reliable than subjective reassurance.

The accepted minimum recovery threshold is a train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9 before extubation after nondepolarizing blockade. This threshold does not guarantee global readiness for extubation. Airway reflexes, oxygenation, ventilation, hemodynamics, temperature, mental status, aspiration risk, residual anesthetic and opioid effects, and procedure-specific concerns still require independent assessment.

The train-of-four ratio answers one important question: has neuromuscular recovery reached the accepted minimum threshold?

Current Evidence

The evidence should be interpreted in layers.

Diagnostic accuracy

Quantitative monitors identify residual neuromuscular blockade more reliably than clinical signs or qualitative twitch assessment. This point is sufficiently established that the central implementation question is no longer whether objective monitoring is more informative. The question is how reliably it can be incorporated into routine practice.

Prevention of residual neuromuscular blockade

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses generally support the conclusion that quantitative monitoring reduces postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade compared with qualitative or absent monitoring.

A meta-analysis of 53 studies involving 12,664 patients found a lower pooled incidence of postoperative residual curarization with quantitative monitoring than with qualitative or no monitoring. However, the authors rated the global certainty of evidence as very low because of within-study bias, between-study heterogeneity, and limitations in the network meta-analysis (Carvalho et al., 2020).

Studies differ in monitoring technology, calibration methods, anesthetic technique, neuromuscular blocking agents, reversal strategies, recovery thresholds, measurement timing, and definitions of residual blockade. These differences limit comparability and affect confidence in pooled estimates.

A 2025 prospective observational study conducted in a setting with readily available quantitative monitoring and reversal agents found residual neuromuscular blockade in 2.2% of 500 patients on arrival in the postanesthesia care unit. The accompanying systematic review found substantial variation across contemporary studies and a decreasing incidence in parts of Europe and North America. These findings suggest progress but do not establish that technology availability alone prevents residual blockade (Bijkerk et al., 2025).

Postoperative pulmonary and clinical outcomes

Postoperative pulmonary complications are clinically important but multifactorial. Neuromuscular blocking agent exposure, residual weakness, reversal choice, monitoring practice, patient comorbidities, surgery type, ventilation strategy, opioid and sedative exposure, aspiration risk, fluid management, and postoperative care may all contribute.

The POPULAR study found an association between neuromuscular blocking agent use and postoperative pulmonary complications. However, it was a prospective observational study, and residual confounding limits causal interpretation. In that cohort, neuromuscular monitoring, reversal-agent administration, choice of sugammadex rather than neostigmine, and extubation at a train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9 were not associated with fewer postoperative pulmonary complications (Kirmeier et al., 2019).

A post hoc exploratory analysis of POPULAR data suggested that extubation at a train-of-four ratio above 0.95 rather than above 0.9 might be associated with fewer pulmonary complications among patients receiving quantitative monitoring. The analysis was exploratory and does not supersede the guideline-supported threshold of at least 0.9 (Blobner et al., 2020).

Other clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews suggest that quantitative monitoring may reduce selected respiratory events associated with incomplete recovery. Evidence is more consistent for preventing residual neuromuscular blockade than for independently preventing broad pulmonary or major postoperative outcomes (Murphy & Brull, 2022).

The most defensible conclusion is measured but strong: quantitative monitoring is justified to reduce residual neuromuscular blockade. Claims that monitoring independently prevents all postoperative pulmonary complications should be avoided unless supported by the specific study design, population, intervention, and outcome.

Clinical Implications Beyond Anesthesia

Although quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is primarily an anesthesia and perioperative practice issue, the consequences of incomplete recovery are relevant to a broader clinician audience.

Pulmonologists may encounter postoperative hypoxemia, atelectasis, upper-airway obstruction, impaired cough, aspiration, or escalation to noninvasive or invasive ventilatory support in patients with possible residual neuromuscular blockade.

Neurologists and intensivists may be consulted for postoperative weakness, dysphagia, delayed recovery, or an unexpectedly prolonged need for ventilatory support. Cardiologists, nephrologists, and hospitalists frequently manage older patients and patients with limited physiologic reserve after surgery. Pharmacists contribute to reversal selection, dosing review, renal-function assessment, drug-interaction evaluation, and identification of labeling precautions.

Residual neuromuscular blockade should be considered when a postoperative patient has unexplained weakness, upper-airway obstruction, impaired cough, hypoventilation, oxygen desaturation, dysphagia, or delayed mobilization.

It should not be assumed to be the only explanation. Other urgent possibilities include opioid effect, residual anesthetic, stroke, metabolic derangement, aspiration, pulmonary embolism, myocardial ischemia, sepsis, and surgical complications.

The important distinction is that residual neuromuscular blockade is measurable and often preventable. Effective quantitative monitoring reduces the risk of residual blockade and may support safer perioperative care. Evidence that it independently reduces broader postoperative complications remains less certain.

Patient Selection and Risk Stratification

Quantitative monitoring should not be reserved only for patients considered high risk. When a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent is administered, objective assessment of recovery is clinically appropriate.

Risk stratification still matters because the consequences of residual weakness are not uniform. Patients who may have less physiologic reserve or an increased clinical consequence from incomplete recovery include those with:

• Chronic obstructive or restrictive lung disease
• Obstructive sleep apnea or obesity hypoventilation
• Frailty or advanced age
• Neuromuscular disease
• Renal or hepatic impairment
• Hypothermia
• Major abdominal or thoracic surgery
• Prolonged procedures
• Anticipated difficult airway
• High opioid or sedative exposure
• Limited cardiopulmonary reserve

Concomitant medications may also alter the intensity or duration of neuromuscular blockade. Current rocuronium labeling identifies possible enhancement of blockade with inhaled anesthetics, certain antibiotics, magnesium, lithium, local anesthetics, procainamide, and quinidine. Anticonvulsant therapy may reduce rocuronium activity in some circumstances (DailyMed, 2025b).

Special populations require additional nuance. Patients with myasthenia gravis or other neuromuscular disorders may have altered sensitivity to neuromuscular blocking agents and reversal drugs. Current cisatracurium labeling identifies patients with neuromuscular disease as being at increased risk for residual paralysis and recommends a lower initial bolus dose in this population (DailyMed, 2025a).

Severe renal impairment requires particular caution when selecting a reversal strategy. Current sugammadex labeling states that use is not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment, including those requiring dialysis (DailyMed, 2026a).

Pediatric patients require age-appropriate agent selection, dosing, monitoring, and reversal. Succinylcholine carries a boxed warning for acute rhabdomyolysis with hyperkalemia followed by ventricular dysrhythmias, cardiac arrest, and death in apparently healthy pediatric patients subsequently found to have an undiagnosed skeletal muscle myopathy. Current labeling recommends reserving pediatric use for emergency intubation or situations in which immediate airway control is necessary (DailyMed, 2025c).

Diagnostic Considerations

The train-of-four ratio is a neuromuscular recovery metric, not a global extubation score.

A valid train-of-four ratio below 0.9 at the adductor pollicis indicates residual neuromuscular blockade. A ratio of at least 0.9 supports adequate neuromuscular recovery but does not replace complete clinical assessment.

Monitoring site

The monitoring site is central to interpretation. Facial muscles, including the corrugator supercilii and orbicularis oculi, generally recover earlier than the adductor pollicis. Monitoring at an eye muscle near emergence may therefore provide false reassurance.

Eye-muscle monitoring may have a role during selected phases of deep blockade or when estimating conditions at muscles with response characteristics closer to those of the larynx. Recovery assessment before extubation should use the adductor pollicis whenever feasible.

Monitoring technology

Acceleromyography requires adequate thumb movement, correct sensor positioning, preload when appropriate, calibration, and consideration of baseline normalization. Baseline acceleromyographic values may exceed 1.0, so an unnormalized displayed ratio near 0.9 may require cautious interpretation.

Electromyography is less dependent on unrestricted movement but still requires correct electrode placement, appropriate signal acquisition, and a stable tracing.

A numeric value should not be accepted uncritically when the signal is poor, the setup is unstable, the hand is constrained, the extremity is cold or poorly perfused, or the monitoring site is inappropriate for the decision being made.

Reversal and Safety Considerations

Reversal should be based on the measured depth of block and the neuromuscular blocking agent used.

Sugammadex

Sugammadex reverses neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium and vecuronium. It does not reverse blockade produced by benzylisoquinolinium agents such as cisatracurium or atracurium, and it should not be used to reverse succinylcholine-induced blockade.

The ASA recommends sugammadex over neostigmine for deep, moderate, and shallow blockade induced by rocuronium or vecuronium when pharmacologic antagonism is needed. The ESAIC guideline similarly recommends sugammadex for deep, moderate, and shallow aminosteroid blockade (Thilen et al., 2023; Fuchs-Buder et al., 2023).

Sugammadex dosing and timing should follow the current product labeling and measured twitch response. Administration of the reversal agent does not itself prove adequate recovery. Ventilation and airway support must be maintained until recovery is confirmed.

Important sugammadex safety considerations include:

• Contraindication in patients with known hypersensitivity to sugammadex or its components
• Hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis, including reactions in patients without known previous exposure
• Marked bradycardia, including reports of cardiac arrest
• Persistent or recurrent blockade after underdosing
• Recurrent blockade associated with displacement interactions or subsequent administration of drugs that potentiate blockade
• Delayed recovery with toremifene
• Reduced effectiveness of hormonal contraceptives, requiring an additional nonhormonal contraceptive method for 7 days after administration
• Non-recommendation in severe renal impairment, including dialysis
• Transient changes in coagulation parameters and the need for additional monitoring in selected patients with coagulopathy or therapeutic anticoagulation
• The need to consider label-specified waiting periods before re-administering rocuronium or vecuronium

These precautions remain relevant even when quantitative monitoring is used (DailyMed, 2026a).

Neostigmine

Neostigmine remains clinically relevant, but its effectiveness depends on adequate spontaneous recovery.

The ASA considers neostigmine a reasonable alternative to sugammadex at minimal blockade, defined in the guideline as a train-of-four ratio from 0.4 to less than 0.9. The ESAIC recommends advanced spontaneous recovery before neostigmine-based reversal and continued quantitative monitoring until the train-of-four ratio exceeds 0.9.

Neostigmine should not be treated as a dependable rescue strategy for deep blockade when meaningful twitch recovery is absent.

Current labeling emphasizes:

• Administration by trained clinicians
• Use of peripheral nerve stimulation to determine timing and the need for additional dosing
• Individualized dosing according to spontaneous recovery and the blocking agent being reversed
• Maintenance of ventilation and a patent airway until recovery is complete
• Administration of atropine or glycopyrrolate before or with neostigmine
• Contraindication in patients with hypersensitivity to neostigmine
• Contraindication in patients with peritonitis or mechanical obstruction of the intestinal or urinary tract
• Risk of bradycardia and cholinergic adverse effects
• Caution in patients with coronary artery disease, cardiac arrhythmias, recent acute coronary syndrome, or myasthenia gravis
• Potential neuromuscular dysfunction when excessive doses are administered after recovery is nearly complete

The effect of neostigmine may also be outlasted by a longer-acting neuromuscular blocking agent, particularly when drug clearance is impaired (DailyMed, 2026b).

Neuromuscular blocking agents

Neuromuscular blocking agents require strict medication-safety systems. Rocuronium, vecuronium, cisatracurium, atracurium, and related agents can produce profound paralysis, respiratory arrest, and death if airway support and ventilation are not maintained.

They should be administered only by clinicians familiar with their actions and complications, with immediate access to intubation, ventilation, oxygenation, resuscitation, and appropriate reversal resources.

Succinylcholine has additional risks, including malignant hyperthermia, hyperkalemia, bradyarrhythmias, masseter spasm, and prolonged paralysis in patients with reduced pseudocholinesterase activity. Quantitative monitoring does not prevent these drug-specific complications, but it reduces uncertainty when assessing recovery from nondepolarizing blockade.

Practical Approach for Clinicians

A practical monitoring protocol does not need to be complicated.

Before or shortly after administering a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent, the monitor should be positioned correctly. A baseline should be obtained when feasible, and the device type and monitoring site should be documented.

During the procedure, additional neuromuscular blocking agent should be titrated to measured depth and surgical need rather than administered repeatedly by routine habit.

As emergence approaches, the depth of block should be reassessed quantitatively.

If deep or moderate rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced blockade persists and timely reversal is required, sugammadex may be appropriate when its use is consistent with current labeling and institutional protocols. Known hypersensitivity is a contraindication, and severe renal impairment is a labeled population in which use is not recommended.

If minimal residual blockade is present, neostigmine may be reasonable when sufficient spontaneous recovery is documented, an anticholinergic agent is administered, and quantitative monitoring continues until recovery is confirmed.

If spontaneous recovery to a train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9 has already occurred and the patient meets all other clinical readiness criteria, pharmacologic reversal may not be necessary.

Before extubation after nondepolarizing blockade, clinicians should confirm a valid train-of-four ratio of at least 0.9 at the adductor pollicis whenever feasible.

When acceleromyography produces a value close to the threshold, interpretation should account for signal quality, baseline normalization, hand movement, sensor position, temperature, and clinical context.

The numeric threshold is a minimum neuromuscular recovery standard, not a substitute for judgment.

Table 1. Measured Neuromuscular Recovery

Measured finding	Clinical interpretation and practical response
TOF count 0 with post-tetanic count present	Deep block. Neostigmine is not an appropriate dependable reversal strategy. For rocuronium or vecuronium, consider label-based sugammadex when indicated, or allow further spontaneous recovery.
TOF count 1 to 3	Moderate block. Reversal depends on the blocking agent, urgency, patient factors, and current labeling. ASA guidance favors sugammadex over neostigmine for rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced block at this depth.
TOF count 4 with TOFR below 0.4	Shallow block. Delay extubation, select reversal according to the agent and measured depth, and repeat quantitative assessment.
TOFR 0.4 to less than 0.9	Minimal or residual block. Neostigmine may be a reasonable alternative in selected patients, but monitoring must continue until TOFR is at least 0.9.
TOFR at least 0.9 at the adductor pollicis	Guideline-supported minimum neuromuscular recovery threshold. Supports neuromuscular readiness but does not replace complete airway, ventilation, hemodynamic, and mental-status assessment.
TOFR near the threshold with questionable signal	Possible artifact or device limitation. Reassess the setup, monitoring site, signal quality, limb movement, temperature, and baseline normalization before relying on the value.

Table 2. Common Reasons Clinicians Still “Guess”

Pitfall	Why it matters and safer practice
Relying on head lift, grip strength, or apparent breathing	Clinical tests depend on cooperation, sedation, pain, and baseline strength and may miss residual weakness. Use a valid quantitative TOFR measurement.
Visual or tactile TOF assessment alone	Fade becomes difficult to detect near clinically important recovery thresholds. Use a quantitative monitor when assessing recovery.
Monitoring at an eye muscle near emergence	Eye muscles may recover earlier than the adductor pollicis and provide false reassurance. Confirm recovery at the adductor pollicis when feasible.
Reversal based on elapsed time	Duration varies with dose, temperature, organ function, anesthetic technique, drug interactions, and patient factors. Select reversal according to measured depth.
Documenting “reversed” without a measured TOFR	Drug administration does not prove recovery. Document the device, site, measured TOFR, and overall clinical readiness.
Accepting any displayed number without reviewing signal quality	Device artifact, poor electrode placement, restricted movement, or inadequate normalization may produce misleading values. Validate the signal before making an extubation decision.

Table 3. Reversal and Safety Considerations

Agent or issue	Key clinical and safety considerations
Sugammadex	Reverses rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced blockade according to measured depth. Contraindicated with known hypersensitivity. Risks include anaphylaxis, marked bradycardia, recurrent blockade, displacement interactions, and reduced hormonal contraceptive effectiveness. Additional nonhormonal contraception is required for 7 days. Use is not recommended in severe renal impairment, including dialysis.
Neostigmine	Requires sufficient spontaneous recovery and quantitative follow-up. Administer atropine or glycopyrrolate before or concomitantly. Maintain ventilation and a patent airway until recovery. Contraindicated with hypersensitivity, peritonitis, or mechanical intestinal or urinary obstruction. Excessive dosing near complete recovery may produce neuromuscular dysfunction.
Cisatracurium and atracurium	Not reversed by sugammadex. Reversal depends on spontaneous recovery and use of an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor when appropriate. Patients with neuromuscular disease may have increased sensitivity and residual-paralysis risk.
Rocuronium and vecuronium	Aminosteroid neuromuscular blocking agents that may be reversed with sugammadex. Dose and duration may be affected by organ dysfunction, anesthetic agents, antibiotics, magnesium, lithium, local anesthetics, procainamide, quinidine, and anticonvulsant therapy.
Succinylcholine	Depolarizing blocker with rapid onset and usually short duration. Not reversed by sugammadex. Risks include malignant hyperthermia, hyperkalemia, bradyarrhythmias, prolonged block with reduced pseudocholinesterase activity, and the pediatric boxed warning for hyperkalemic rhabdomyolysis and cardiac arrest.
Neuromuscular disease	Response to blockade and reversal may be altered or unpredictable. Use individualized agent selection, dosing, quantitative monitoring, and specialist-informed perioperative planning.

Limitations of the Evidence

The evidence supports quantitative monitoring as an important safety practice, but several uncertainties remain.

Studies vary in monitoring devices, calibration methods, recovery thresholds, neuromuscular blocking agents, reversal drugs, anesthetic techniques, measurement timing, outcome definitions, and implementation fidelity.

The evidence base includes randomized trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, and quality-improvement initiatives. Observational findings remain vulnerable to confounding by patient risk, surgical complexity, clinician behavior, and institutional protocols. Randomized trials powered for uncommon but serious pulmonary outcomes are difficult to conduct and require large sample sizes.

Evidence is strongest for the detection and reduction of residual neuromuscular blockade. The magnitude of benefit for pneumonia, reintubation, postoperative respiratory failure, length of stay, and other major outcomes remains less certain.

Implementation is another limitation. Placing a monitor in the operating room does not improve care unless clinicians use it correctly and connect the result to dosing, reversal selection, extubation, documentation, and postoperative observation.

The remaining challenge is not merely technological. It is behavioral, educational, and systems-based.

Future Directions

The next phase should move from proof of measurement to reliable implementation.

Priorities include better integration of quantitative monitoring into anesthesia information systems, standardized documentation of the device and monitoring site, decision support for reversal selection, and monitor designs that reduce setup and interpretation barriers.

Electronic prompts may support documentation of the monitoring site, device type, and measured train-of-four ratio before extubation. Any electronic hard stop or mandatory workflow should be locally validated, provide an appropriate clinician override for urgent circumstances, and be evaluated for unintended safety and workflow consequences.

Professional practice initiatives have shown that education, accessible equipment, documentation standards, and performance feedback can substantially increase the use of quantitative monitoring and the documentation of train-of-four ratios of at least 0.9 (Weigel et al., 2022).

Future studies should clarify:

• Whether thresholds above 0.9 improve outcomes in selected populations
• Whether specific monitoring technologies perform better in real-world conditions
• How normalization should be handled across devices
• How monitoring protocols should be adapted for children
• How best to manage patients with neuromuscular disorders or severe renal impairment
• How monitoring should be integrated during ICU-to-operating-room transitions
• Whether implementation strategies improve patient-centered outcomes rather than documentation alone

References

American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. (2023). Practice guidelines for monitoring and antagonism of neuromuscular blockade: A report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuromuscular Blockade. Anesthesiology, 138(1), 13-41. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004379
PMID: 36520073

Bijkerk, V., Krijtenburg, P., Verweijen, T., Bruhn, J., Scheffer, G. J., Keijzer, C., & Warlé, M. C. (2025). Residual neuromuscular block in the postanaesthesia care unit: A single-centre prospective observational study and systematic review. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 134(2), 350-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.043
PMID: 39443187

Blobner, M., Hunter, J. M., Meistelman, C., Hoeft, A., Hollmann, M. W., Kirmeier, E., Lewald, H., & Ulm, K. (2020). Use of a train-of-four ratio of 0.95 versus 0.9 for tracheal extubation: An exploratory analysis of POPULAR data. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 124(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.08.023
PMID: 31607388

Carvalho, H., Verdonck, M., Cools, W., Geerts, L., Forget, P., & Poelaert, J. (2020). Forty years of neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: A meta-analysis and evaluation of confidence in network meta-analysis. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 125(4), 466-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.05.063
PMID: 32680607

DailyMed. (2025a). Cisatracurium besylate injection prescribing information. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=c5a63679-0c94-4e9d-9ac0-8ee3023bd9a6

DailyMed. (2025b). Rocuronium bromide injection prescribing information. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=f58803b0-f173-4997-b2f8-0f415b94dacf

DailyMed. (2025c). Succinylcholine chloride injection prescribing information. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/fda/fdaDrugXsl.cfm?setid=7d0f0431-e616-49c2-80d8-0752a45428db&type=display

DailyMed. (2026a). Bridion (sugammadex) injection prescribing information. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=5171d883-fe8f-482c-97ab-40b00975b64a

DailyMed. (2026b). Neostigmine methylsulfate injection prescribing information. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved July 25, 2026, from https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=9cc2bfa1-c968-4d01-8162-2ef188974164

Fuchs-Buder, T., Romero, C. S., Lewald, H., Lamperti, M., Afshari, A., Hristovska, A. M., Schmartz, D., Hinkelbein, J., Longrois, D., Popp, M., de Boer, H. D., Sorbello, M., Jankovic, R., & Kranke, P. (2023). Peri-operative management of neuromuscular blockade: A guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 40(2), 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000001769
PMID: 36377554

Hristovska, A. M., Duch, P., Allingstrup, M., & Afshari, A. (2017). Efficacy and safety of sugammadex versus neostigmine in reversing neuromuscular blockade in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 8(8), CD012763. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012763
PMID: 28806470

Kirmeier, E., Eriksson, L. I., Lewald, H., Fagerlund, M. J., Hoeft, A., Hollmann, M., Meistelman, C., Hunter, J. M., Ulm, K., Blobner, M., & POPULAR Contributors. (2019). Post-anaesthesia pulmonary complications after use of muscle relaxants: A multicentre, prospective observational study. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 7(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30294-7
PMID: 30224322

Murphy, G. S., & Brull, S. J. (2022). Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative outcomes: A narrative review. Anesthesiology, 136(2), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004044
PMID: 34813652

Weigel, W. A., Williams, B. L., Hanson, N. A., Blackmore, C. C., Johnson, R. L., Nissen, G. M., James, A. B., & Strodtbeck, W. M. (2022). Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring in clinical practice: A professional practice change initiative. Anesthesiology, 136(6), 901-915. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004174
PMID: 35188958