Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 22175

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : September | Volume : 16 | Issue : 9 | Page : UC52 - UC56 Full Version

Comparison of the Effect of Pretreatment with Cisatracurium and Rocuronium on Succinylcholine Induced Fasciculation for Patients undergoing Surgery under General Anaesthesia: A Randomised Clinical Study


Published: September 1, 2022 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2022/57399.16938
Saptadeepa Gupta, Bani Parvati Magda Hembrom, Suchismita Mallick, Arpita Choudhury, Sarmila Ghosh

1. Junior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Deben Mahata Government Medical College and Hospital, Purulia, West Bengal, India. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. 5. Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Murshidabad Medical College, Murshidabad, West Bengal, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Arpita Choudhury,
C/O: Mamata Chowdhury, Vill+P.O.: Kotulpur, Dist.: Bankura,
Pin: 722141, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: arpitachoudhury1988@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Succinylcholine is the best agent for providing ideal intubating condition. Muscle fasciculation is common after succinylcholine administration and causes postoperative myalgia. Pretreatment with non depolarising muscle relaxant decreases fasciculation and myalgia after succinylcholine administration.

Aim: To compare the efficacy between cisatracurium and rocuronium in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation in patients undergoing general anaesthesia and determining association between fasciculation and myalgia after succinylcholine use.

Materials and Methods: The present study was a hospital-based, randomised, double-blinded clinical study conducted from January 2020 to July 2020. The study included 64 patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade I and II undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia which were randomly allocated in two groups. Group 1 (N=32) received intravenous (i.v.) cisatracurium (0.01 mg/kg) and Group 2 (N=32) received i.v. rocuronium (0.06 mg/kg) as precurarising agent, three minutes before i.v. succinylcholine (1.5 mg/kg) administration. Incidence and intensity of fasciculation after succinylcholine injection were observed using a 4 point scale. Haemodynamic parameters were compared by measuring Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) and Heart Rate (HR) before and after intubation. Patients were followed-up in Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) on postoperative day 1 (POD1) for myalgia. Observations in two groups were analysed using standard statistical test.

Results: Fasciculation was significantly lower in Group 2 (mean 0.2187±0.4200) than Group 1 (mean 1.125±0.833, p<0.001). A significant association was found between fasciculation after succinylcholine injection and postoperative myalgia (p-value=0.007). Group 2 had less incidence of myalgia than Group 1. However, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Rocuronium was more efficacious than cisatracurium in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation and rocuronium was more effective in preventing succinylcholine-related postoperative myalgia.

Keywords

Non depolarising muscle relaxant, Precurarisation, Postoperative myalgia

Succinylcholine is the only available depolarising muscle relaxant for clinical use with rapid onset and ultra short duration of action (1). It is popularly used to achieve profound neuromuscular blockade providing ideal condition for tracheal intubation. Succinylcholine is two molecules of acetylcholine combined. This structure underlies succinylcholine’s mechanism of action, side-effects, and metabolism (2). Its use is associated with a number of undesired side-effects, e.g; muscle fasciculation and postoperative myalgia; which though not potentially life-threatening, causes significant discomfort in some patients.

Fasciculation refers to visible muscle contractions resulting from asynchronous firing of all the muscle fibres in a motor unit supplied by a motor neuron (1). Muscle fasciculations are common after succinylcholine administration which are attributed to antidromically conducted axonal depolarisations initiated by the agonist action of succinylcholine on prejunctional nicotinic receptors at the neuromuscular junction (3). Fasciculations after succinylcholine administration have been associated with postoperative myalgia (4). Incidence of muscle pain after succinylcholine injection varies from 0.2-89% (1) and is more frequent in minor, ambulatory surgeries and in women. The relationship between fasciculation and postoperative myalgia is inconsistent. Myalgias are theorised to be due to initial unsynchronised contraction of muscle groups (2).

Several methods have been instituted to prevent or reduce the incidence of fasciculation after succinylcholine administration including pretreatment with lidocaine/diazepam/phenytoin/ sub-paralysing doses of Non Depolarising Muscle Relaxant (NDMR). Perioperative Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and benzodiazepines may reduce incidence and severity of myalgia (2). Preliminary evidence shows that precurarisation with small dose of NDMR suppresses fasciculation. The NDMR given before succinylcholine will bind to presynaptic neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and block binding of succinylcholine, therefore reducing fasciculation. Role of rocuronium has been extensively studied for the purpose and shown efficacy for defasciculation at dosage of 0.06-0.1 mg/kg (2).

Cisatracurium is a comparatively newer NDMR which is four or five times more potent than atracurium (1). It is one of the ten isomers of atracurium and constitutes 15% of the mixture. It is noted to have less production of laudonosine, devoid of histamine releasing property and autonomic effects even at very high doses (almost eight times of ED95 i.e., the dose causing on average 95% suppression of neuromuscular response) (2) with significantly lesser cardiovascular side-effects. To suppress fasciculation in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia, present study have compared efficacy of these two NDMR- cisatracurium and rocuronium.

The primary objective of the study was to determine the comparative efficacy between cisatracurium and rocuronium in preventing succinylcholine induced muscle fasciculation in patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Secondary objective was to find out any possible association between fasciculation and postoperative myalgia in patients receiving succinylcholine, to determine efficacy of NDMRs in preventing such muscle aches and also to associate the haemodynamic changes reflected after intubating dose of succinylcholine within the study groups.

Material and Methods

The present study was a hospital-based, randomised, double-blinded interventional study, conducted from January 2020 to July 2020 in the elective surgery operating rooms of a tertiary care centre. Clearance from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) (Letter number: RKC/114, Dated: 12.02.2020) was obtained.

Inclusion criteria: A sample of 64 adult patients of ASA grade I and II (aged 18-65 years) were enrolled in this study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with morbid obesity, history of neuromuscular disease, history of cardiovascular/ renal/ hepatic disease, suspected difficult intubation, pregnancy, raised intracranial tension/intraocular tension, hyperkalaemia, burn patients were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size for the study was calculated based on a previous study conducted by Joshi GP et al., (5) by applying the formula:

Sample size (n)=(p0q0+p1q1)(z1-a/2+z1-b)2
(p1-p0)2

p0= Success rate in Cisatracurium group.

P1= Success rate in Rocuronium group.

Applying the formula,

n= (0.7×0.3+0.95×0.05)×7.84
(0.95-0.7)2
= 32.23
= 32 (Approximately)

So, sample size in each group was 32, total sample size was 64. Statistical power was 80%. Fasciculation of less than grade 2 was defined as effective pretreatment.

The enrolled patients were randomly allocated by a computer generated randomisation table, in a double blinded manner, to one of the two groups- Group 1 (N=32) and Group 2 (N=32) (Table/Fig 1). Detailed written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. However, the participants were not informed about the group distribution and which drug to be administered to them.

A standardised anaesthesia protocol was implemented for all participants. On the day of surgery, patients in the operating room were attached with standard ASA monitors. Preoperative HR and MAP were recorded. Patients were preoxygenated with 100% oxygen for three minutes. Then the patients were injected with i.v. midazolam (0.03 mg/kg), i.v. fentanyl (2 μg/kg) and i.v. Glycopyrrolate (4 μg/kg). Group 1 received pretreatment with i.v. cisatracurium at 0.01 mg/kg and Group 2 received pretreatment with i.v. rocuronium at 0.06 mg/kg. Study solutions (a standardised volume of 3 mL) (5) were prepared by a senior resident, who was given a written protocol for drug preparation. Anaesthesiologist who administered the drug and recorded the data was unaware of the composition of the solution administered. Patients were monitored for three minutes for any clinical sign of muscle weakness like eye weakness, diplopia etc. During this time, patients were oxygenated with 100% oxygen. After three minutes, general anaesthesia was induced with i.v. propofol (2 mg/kg). i.v. succinylcholine was given at 1.5 mg/kg. Intensity of fasciculation was assessed using the Harvey Scale (6) with 4 point rating from 0-3 as follows (Table/Fig 2).

Airway was secured one minute after succinylcholine administration. Postintubation HR and MAP were recorded. All the participants received inj. fentanyl (2 μg/kg) before induction, inj. diclofenac (1 mg/kg) intraoperatively, inf. paracetamol (15 mg/kg) just before extubation and inj. paracetamol (15 mg/kg) eight hourly in the postoperative period for analgesia. The patients were followed-up on postoperative day one and were enquired about presence of muscle aches. Patients who complained of myalgia were administered i.v. paracetamol infusion (1 g), as rescue analgesic.

Statistical Analysis

Data were entered into Microsoft excel spreadsheet and analysed using parametric and nonparametric tests and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. Categorical data were presented as numbers (n) and percentage (%) and compared using Chi-square test. Numerical data were presented as mean and standard deviation (mean±SD) and evaluated using unpaired t-test. A p-value <0.05 was considered for statistical significance.

Results

(Table/Fig 3) shows that the two groups were comparable for age, sex, weight, height. (Table/Fig 4) shows incidence of significant fasciculation (Fasciculation Grade ≥Grade 2 was considered significant) in the 2 groups. It revealed that Group 2 has less occurrence of significant fasciculation than Group 1 and the value was statistically significant.

(Table/Fig 5) shows the difference of occurrence of fasciculation according to severity grading between the two groups. Most patients of Group 1 had mild to moderate fasciculation (23 out of 32), one patient (out of 32) had severe fasciculation and eight patient (out of 32) had no fasciculation. Where as in Group 2, fasciculations did not occur in most of the patients (25 out of 32) and seven patients (out of 32) had mild fasciculation. Moderate or severe fasciculation did not occur in any patient of Group 2.

(Table/Fig 6) shows that the patients in Group 2 had less incidence of myalgia (on postoperative day 1) than Group 1. But, the difference was not statistically significant. Data in (Table/Fig 7) shows that incidence of myalgia was related to occurrence of fasciculation after succinylcholine injection. This relation was statistically significant.

(Table/Fig 8) shows that myalgia (on POD1) occurred in 18.19% patients (15.15% patients were from Group 2) who had no fasciculation, in 30% patients (20% belongs to Group 1) having mild fasciculation, in 80% patients (all from Group 1) with moderate fasciculation and in 100% patients (from Group 1) with severe fasciculation. So, it is concluded that those having myalgia also had fasciculation and the value is statistically significant. Total 21 patients experienced myalgia on POD1 and were administered rescue analgesic.

(Table/Fig 9)a shows that preinduction HR and preinduction MAP between Group 1 and Group 2 were comparable. Comparing postintubation HR at 5 minutes with preinduction values (Table/Fig 9)b, it was found that in patients receiving cisatracurium (Group 1) the change in HR before and after intubation was not statistically significant. However, HR at 5 minutes after intubation significantly increased in rocuronium group (Group 2). Statistically significant increase in postintubation MAP was found in Group 1 in contrast to Group 2 where the difference of preinduction and postintubation mean MAP was insignificant (Table/Fig 9)b.

Discussion

Succinylcholine has been the most suitable neuromuscular blocking drug to provide ideal conditions for endotracheal intubation in majority of the general anaesthesia cases (1). But in recent years anesthesiologists are avoiding it because of the side-effects such as fasciculations, postoperative myalgia, and rise in potassium level etc. But, because of its cost-effectiveness and easy availability, it is still being used in many developing countries. Hence many studies are still going on to minimise its side-effects. Most popular agent to reduce succinylcholine related fasciculation which is attributed to prejunctional depolarising action of succinylcholine (1), is small dose of NDMR. NDMR given before succinylcholine, will bind to presynaptic nicotinic neuronal acetylcholine receptor, therefore fasciculations should be reduced or prevented (7) (Table/Fig 10).

A meta-analysis of clinical trials for prevention of postoperative myalgia due to succinylcholine discovered that administration of pretreatment dose of various nondepolarising blockers reduced the incidence and severity of fasciculations and myalgia by approximately 30% (8).

In another meta-analysis of randomised trials, it was noted that the incidence of succinylcholine-induced myalgia is high and symptoms sometimes lasted for several days. It was also found that small doses of NDMRs (i.e. approximately 10-30% of ED95) prevent fasciculation and myalgia to some extent; however, the risk of potentially serious adverse effects is not negligible (9).

Joshi GP et al., in a study conducted to show effects of pretreatment with cisatracurium, rocuronium and d-Tubocurarine on succinylcholine-induced fasciculations and myalgia, had demonstrated that both rocuronium and d-tubocurarine were superior to cisatracurium in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation. In the aforesaid study, although fasciculations were observed less frequently in the cisatracurium group (compared to placebo), this difference did not reach statistical significance (6).

In another similar study done by Cybil AT et al., statistically significant difference was demonstrated between rocuronium and cisatracurium fasciculation scores (p=0.001) where rocuronium was more effective in preventing succinylcholine-induced fasciculations. The study also found that cisatracurium at a dose of 0.02 mg/kg was not effective for defasciculation (7).

Kothari D et al., assessed and compared the effect of pre-treatment with Rocuronium and Vecuronium on post succinylcholine fasciculations, rise in serum potassium and Postoperative myalgia and they also concluded that Rocuronium is more effective in preventing post succinylcholine fasciculations, rise in serum potassium and Postoperative myalgia (10).

In present study, it was found that rocuronium was superior to cisatracurium in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation. This finding supports the observation made by Mencke T et al., (11) in a study which also showed that rocuronium was superior to cistracurium in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation compared to saline. Present study observation also matches the study done by Motamed C et al., (12) which showed that rocuronium prevents succinylcholine induced fasciculation. One of the reasons for the differences in the efficacy of these two NDMRs for defasciculation may be related to their affinity for prejunctional acetylcholine receptors (13). It is suggested that NDMRs with greater affinity for these receptors (e.g-rocuronium) are highly efficacious for defasciculation. Other reason for lesser efficacy of cisatracurium may be related to its slower onset of action (6). In present study three minutes interval between the defasciculating dose of cisatracurium and succinylcholine administration was given. It is possible that a longer interval between the defasciculating dose of cisatracurium and succinylcholine may have improved the effectiveness of cisatracurium in preventing fasciculation. This observation was supported by a study conducted by Mencke T et al., (14) to show the influence of precurarising interval in case of precurarisation with cisatracurium where they found that incidence of muscle fasciculation was reduced when a longer pretreatment interval (i.e. 6 minutes, instead of 3 minutes) was chosen. The study done by Kim JH et al., on optimal precurarising dose of rocuronium to decrease fasciculation and myalgia also showed same result (15).

An optimal pretreatment interval of three minutes has been recommended for many commonly used NDMR for defasciculation. Such a lengthy interval may pose the awake patient at risk of unpleasant experience of muscle weakness, difficulty in breathing and swallowing. To avoid this hazard, many have chosen a shorter precurarising interval as reported in a study done by Findlay and Spittal MJ, where they had used 60 seconds interval between pretreatment dose of rocuronium and succinylcholine. Due to rapid onset of action of rocuronium, such short interval was acceptable (16). But, as cisatracurium has a longer onset of action, present study chose the standard recommendation of three minutes precurarising interval for both the drugs and no side-effects were noted.

Efficacy of precurarisation technique also depends on the pretreatment dose. An optimal pretreatment dose should be adequate to be efficacious without producing any side-effects. With defasciculating dose of NDMR exceeding 20% of the ED95 or 10% of the standard intubating dose, side-effects like heavy eyelids, diplopia, swallowing difficulty and generalised discomfort may occur. Even there is chance of respiratory compromise and dyspnea, however incidence is rare. Aspiration of gastric contents after administration of defasciculating dose of NDMR also has been reported (17),(18). Therefore considering safety of the study population, present study have used both the NDMRs at a dose of 20% of ED95 i.e., cisatracurium at a dose of 0.01 mg/kg and rocuronium at a dose of 0.06 mg/kg.

In a previous study conducted by Fukano N et al., a pretreatment dose of i.v. rocuronium at 0.06mg/kg body weight before succinylcholine resulted in depression of an average TOF ratio from 100 to 68% (19). In another study, Martin R et al., (20) observed ocular side-effects in 90% of the patients receiving pretreatment with mivacurium, 20% complained of difficulty in swallowing along with inablity to sustain head lift for more than four seconds and 10% of the patients complained of respiratory discomfort. However, these investigators did not find any correlation between the magnitude of side-effects and prevention of fasciculation. In present study, no patients amongst the study population had developed side-effects related to the pretreatment drug.

The relationship between fasciculation and postoperative myalgia is not well defined (14). Succinylcholine induced fasciculation is widely believed to be the primary cause of myalgia which is most common in the first postoperative day (21). Pretreatment decreases the incidence of fasciculations, but the severity of fasciculation is not related with frequency of postoperative myalgia (22). Rocuronium was found effective in preventing muscle fasciculation, but did not prevent postoperative myalgia (5). Another study by Martin R et al., also failed to conclude about decrease of postoperative myalgia with the use of pretreatment. But it successfully demonstrated the efficacy of rocuronium at a dose 0.06 mg/kg in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation (20). In present study, the relation between fasciculation and postoperative myalgia on POD1 was found to be statistically significant, though no significant association was found with grades of fasciculation and myalgia. Present study also observed that incidence of myalgia was less in rocuronium group than cisatracurium group, however, this difference did not reach statistical significance.

One of the concerns regarding pretreatment with NDMR is that, efficacy of succinylcholine may be reduced resulting in adverse intubating conditions (23). A study showed that subparalysing doses of NDMR did not affect intubating conditions after succinylcholine at a dose 1.5 mg/kg. McLoughlin C et al., (23) reported that increasing the dose of succinylcholine did not increase the incidence of side effects. So, to achieve ideal intubating condition, succinylcholine has been used at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg in present study.

In this study, the preinduction Heart Rate (HR) and Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) were noted and compared with postintubation values at 5 minutes in the two groups. HR at 5 minutes after intubation significantly increased in rocuronium group (Group 2). This could be explained by the vagolytic property of rocuronium (24) causing increase in HR in the subjects of Group 2. MAP at 5 minutes after intubation increased in cisatracurium group (Group 1) which was not clinically significant and no intervention was needed (A “significant” increase in blood pressure is defined as an increase in systolic BP of greater than 20 mm Hg, diastolic BP of greater than 10 mm Hg or initiation of antihypertensive medication) (25).

Limitation(s)

Present study was a single centre study. Multicentre study with larger sample size in future will be better to establish the results. Also, effect of pretreatment with cisatracurium and rocuronium on the rise of serum potassium after succinylcholine administration was not investigated.

Conclusion

The study showed that pretreatment with rocuronium at 0.06 mg/kg is more effective than cisatracurium at a dose 0.01 mg/kg in preventing succinylcholine induced fasciculation. There was a positive association between fasciculation and myalgia. Rocuronium showed better efficacy in preventing postoperative myalgia in patients receiving succinylcholine in present study.

References

1.
Gropper MA, Miller RD, editors. Miller’s Anesthesia. 9th edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2020: pp.792-829.
2.
Butterworth FJ, Mackey DC, Wasnick JD. Morgan and Mikhail’s Clinical Ansthesiology Fifth edition. Newyork: Lange; 2013: pp.199-222.
3.
Wong SF, Chung F. Succinylcholine-associated postoperative myalgia. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:144-52. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.055002144.x. PMID: 10651675. [crossref] [PubMed]
4.
Mingus ML, Herlich A, Eisenkraft JB. Attenuation of suxamethonium myalgias. Anaesthesia. 1990;45:834-37. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1990.tb14565.x. PMID: 1978605. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Joshi GP, Hailey A, Bell GT, Whitten CC. Effects of pretreatment with cisatracurium, rocuronium, and d-tubocurarine on succinylchoine-induced fasciculations and myalgia: A comparison with placebo. J Clin Anaesth. 1999;11:641-45. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0952-8180(99)00109-9. [crossref]
6.
Harvey SC, Roland P, Bailey M, Tomlin MK, Williams A. A randomized, double-blind comparison of rocuronium, d-tubocurarine and ‘mini-dose’ succinylcholine for preventing succinylcholine-induced muscle fasciculations. Anesthesia and Analgesia. 1998;87:719-22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199809000-00044 . PMID: 9728861. [crossref]
7.
Cybil AT, Pamela J, Carter A. Comparison of tubocurarine, rocuronium and cisatracurium in prevention and reduction of succinylcholine induced muscle fasciculation. AANA Journal. 2003;71:23-28.
8.
Pace NL. Prevention of succinylcholine myalgias: A meta- analysis. Anesth Analg. 1990;70(5):477-83. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199005000-00002. PMID: 2139549. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Schreiber JU, Lysakowski C, Buder TF, Tramer MR. Prevention of succinylcholine-induced fasciculation and myalgia: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:877-84. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200510000-00027. PMID: 16192781. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Kothari D, Tripathy S, Upadhyay R. Effect of NMDR on post succinylcholine fasciculations, serum potassium and postoperative myalgia. Asian J Med Sci. 2022;13(6):51-56. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v13i6.42417. [crossref]
11.
Mencke T, Becker C, Bolte M, Fuchs-Buder T. Precurarization of succinylcholine with rocuronium, cisatracurium or saline:efficacy and side-effects - A randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. European Journal of Anaesthesiology. 2001;18:95. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200209002-00992. [crossref]
12.
Motamed C, Choquette R, Donati F. Rocuronium prevents succinylcholine induced fasciculations. Canadian J Anesth. 1997;44(12):1262-28. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03012773. PMID: 9429043. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Bowman WC. Prejumctional and postjunctional cholinoreceptors at the neuromuscular junction. Anesthesia Analgesia.1980;59:935-43. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-198012000-00009. [crossref]
14.
Mencke T, Becker C, Schreiber J, Bolte M, Fuchs-Buder T. Precurarization of succinylcholine with cisatracurium: The influence of the precurarization interval. Der Anaesthesist. 2002;51(9):721-25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-002-0358-x. PMID: 12232643. [crossref] [PubMed]
15.
Kim JH, Cho H, Lee H, Lim H, Yoon S, Chang SH. Comparison of rocuronium and vecuronium pretreatment for prevention of fasciculations. Myalgia and biochemical changes following succinylcholine administration. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin. 1999;37:173-78.
16.
Findlay GP, Spittal MJ. Rocuronium pretreatment reduces suxamethonium induced myalgia: Comparison with vecuronium. Br J Anaesth. 1996;76:526-29. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/76.4.526. PMID: 8652325. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Musich J, Walts LF. Pulmonary aspiration after a priming dose of vecuronium. Anesthesiology. 1986;64:517-19. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-198604000-00021. PMID: 2870668. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Shorten GD, Braude BM. Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents after a priming dose of vecuronium. Paediatric Anaesthesiolology. 1997;7:167-69. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9592.1997.d01-49.x. PMID: 9188120. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Fukano N, Suzuki T, Ishikawa K, Mizutani H, Saeki S, Ogawa S. A randomized trial to identify optimal precurarizing dose of rocuronium to avoid precurarization-induced neuromuscular block. J Anesth. 2011;25:200-04. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-010-1086-z. PMID: 21225293. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Martin R, Carrier J, Pirlet M, Claprood Y, Tetrault JP. Rocuronium is the best nondepolarising relaxant to prevent succinylcholine fasciculations and myalgia. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 1998;45:521-25. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03012701. PMID: 9669004. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Smith I, Ding Y, White PF. Muscle pain after outpatient laparoscopy-Influence of propofol versus thiopentone and enflurane. Anesthesia Analgesia. 1993;76:1181-84. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-199306000-00001. PMID: 8498652. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Tsui B, Reid S, Gupta S, Kearney R, Mayson T, Finucane B. A rapid precurarization technique using rocuronium. Survey of Anesthesiology. 1999;43(5):291. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00132586-199910000-00049. [crossref]
23.
McLoughlin C, Leslie K, Caldwell JE. Influence of dose on suxamethonium-induced muscle damage. Br J Anaesth. 1994;73:194-98. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/73.2.194. PMID: 7917735. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Appiah-Ankam J, Hunter JM. Pharmacology of neuromuscular blocking drugs. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain. 2004;4:02-07. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkh002. [crossref]
25.
Aiyer AN, Kip KE, Mulukutla SR, Marroquin OC, Hipps L, Reis SE. Predictors of significant short-term increases in blood pressure in a community-based population. Am J Med. 2007;120(11):960-67. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed. 2007.06.021. PMID: 17976423. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/57399.16938

Date of Submission: Apr 27, 2022
Date of Peer Review: May 30, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 09, 2022
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2022

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 04, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jul 07, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Aug 29, 2022 (15%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com