ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07750405MMG vs EMG NGUpdated Sep 29, 2026

A Comparative Study of the Next-Generation TetraGraph® and Mechanomyography Neuromuscular Monitors in Clinical Settings

An observational study in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia, sponsored by University of Debrecen. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Hungary. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-29.

Sponsored by University of Debrecen · Observational

Updated Sep 29, 2026Start date movedPrimary completion moved+2 moreGo to Updates ↓
Study type
Observational
Model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
20
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Background: Neuromuscular monitoring plays a critical role in reducing postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB), a significant risk factor for respiratory complications. Despite the availability of various monitoring techniques, the validation of newer devices remains an ongoing challenge. This study compares the performance of the electromyography (EMG)-based New Generation Tetragraph neuromuscular monitor with the gold standard mechanomyography (MMG) device, focusing on their accuracy and reliability in clinical settings.

Methods: Twenty cases were conducted during general surgeries requiring neuromuscular relaxation. Ulnar nerve was stimulated via the Tetragraph which detected the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) of adductor pollicis muscle. Simultaneously on the same arm the isometric force of the same stimulated muscle was registrated by the MMG and displayed in the Labchart 8 program. Bland-Altman analysis was used to describe the agreement between devices during distinct phases of neuromuscular blockade. The primary endpoint of the study was the comparison of TOF (Train Of Four) values of MMG and EMG during induction. In recovery, two groups were made from TOFRs: below and above the recommended muscle recovery to exclude PRNB (TOFR≥90%) (Fuchs-Buder 2023). Additionally, in deeper neuromuscular blockade Train-of-Four Count (TOFC), and Post-Tetanic Count (PTC) values were also analysed.

02

Conditions studied

  • Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia

Keywords

  • neuromuscular monitoring
  • MMG
  • EMG
03

In context

Lead sponsor

University of Debrecen is the lead sponsor of 24 studies on the registry; 4 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

patients undergoing general surgery

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18 years or older.
  • ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology) physical status I-III.
  • Written .
  • The use of a medium-acting muscle relaxant is required for the surgery.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of neuromuscular disease (e.g., stroke with hemiplegic symptoms, myasthenia gravis, severe polyneuropathy).
  • Use of medications affecting neuromuscular transmission.
  • Open wound or rash in the area corresponding to the electrode placement.
  • Anticipated difficult intubation.
  • Pregnancy, breastfeeding.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

05

Study design

Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
20 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • 20 surgical patients

    undergoing surgical procedures and receiving muscle relaxation

    Device: Mechanomiograph (MMG) · Device: Electromiograph (EMG)

Interventions

  • DeviceMechanomiograph (MMG)

    The "gold standard" of quantitative monitoring is mechanomyography (MMG), which measures the force of contraction of the adductor pollicis muscle following ulnar nerve stimulation. MMG responses are accurate and reproducible. However, the complex and bulky devices are only suitable for research use, are not suitable for clinical use and are not commercially available.

  • DeviceElectromiograph (EMG)

    Another type of monitor is the electromyograph, which can be seen as an alternative to mechanomyography because of its accuracy. This technique measures muscle activity as a summation of the action potentials of muscle fibres. This activity is proportional to the strength of the muscle contraction. The most commonly innervated nerve is also the ulnar nerve, which innervates the abductor digiti minimi and the first dorsalis interosseus muscles. During the measurements, electrical signals from these muscles are detected. EMG has several advantages over other monitoring techniques. It does not require immobilisation of the hand, thumb immobility is not a problem, no preload is required, and hypothermia does not affect the hand as much as other neuromuscular monitors. The TetraGraph (Senzime AB, Sweden) is a portable EMG-based neuromuscular minitor for which the manufacturers received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. concordance between the two devices.

    The primary endpoint of the study is to compare TOF (Train of Four) values measured using mechanomyography and electromyography, and to assess the measurement concordance between the two devices.

    Time frame: intraoperative

07

Study locations

1 site
  • University of Debrecen, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
    Debrecen, Hajdú-Bihar 4032, Hungary
    • Béla Fülesdi, MD · Contactfulesdi@med.unideb.hu · +36303838557
    • László Asztalos, MD · Contactasztalos.laszlo@med.unideb.hu · +36307371315
    • Adrienn Pongrácz, MD · Sub investigator
    • Péter Filipcsuk, MD · Sub investigator
    • Réka Nemes, MD · Sub investigator
    • Blanka Ludescher · Sub investigator
    • Béla Fülesdi, MD · Sub investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Fuchs-Buder T, Claudius C, Skovgaard LT, Eriksson LI, Mirakhur RK, Viby-Mogensen J; 8th International Neuromuscular Meeting. Good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents II: the Stockholm revision. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007 Aug;51(7):789-808. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.2007.01352.x. PubMed 17635389 ↗
  • Ebert TJ, Vogt JA, Kaur R, Iqbal Z, Peters DJ, Cummings CE, Stekiel TA. Train-of-four ratio, counts and post tetanic counts with the Tetragraph electromyograph in comparison to mechanomyography. J Clin Monit Comput. 2025 Feb;39(1):149-156. doi: 10.1007/s10877-024-01225-3. Epub 2024 Oct 18. PubMed 39424740 ↗
  • Sato H, Iwasaki H, Doshu-Kajiura A, Katagiri S, Takagi S, Luthe SK, Suzuki T. Comparison of two electromyography-based neuromuscular monitors, AF-201P and TetraGraph, in rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block: A prospective comparative study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2022 Dec;41(6):101145. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2022.101145. Epub 2022 Aug 31. PubMed 36057386 ↗
  • Nemes R, Lengyel S, Nagy G, Hampton DR, Gray M, Renew JR, Tassonyi E, Fulesdi B, Brull SJ. Ipsilateral and Simultaneous Comparison of Responses from Acceleromyography- and Electromyography-based Neuromuscular Monitors. Anesthesiology. 2021 Oct 1;135(4):597-611. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003896. PubMed 34329371 ↗
  • Kopman AF, Justo MD, Mallhi MU, Abara CE, Neuman GG. The influence of changes in hand temperature on the indirectly evoked electromyogram of the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Can J Anaesth. 1995 Dec;42(12):1090-5. doi: 10.1007/BF03015094. PubMed 8595683 ↗
  • Engbaek J, Skovgaard LT, Friis B, Kann T, Viby-Mogensen J. Monitoring of the neuromuscular transmission by electromyography (I). Stability and temperature dependence of evoked EMG response compared to mechanical twitch recordings in the cat. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1992 Aug;36(6):495-504. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1992.tb03506.x. PubMed 1325093 ↗
  • Naguib M, Brull SJ, Johnson KB. Conceptual and technical insights into the basis of neuromuscular monitoring. Anaesthesia. 2017 Jan;72 Suppl 1:16-37. doi: 10.1111/anae.13738. PubMed 28044330 ↗
  • Naguib M, Kopman AF, Ensor JE. Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarisation: a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2007 Mar;98(3):302-16. doi: 10.1093/bja/ael386. PubMed 17307778 ↗
  • Todd MM, Hindman BJ, King BJ. The implementation of quantitative electromyographic neuromuscular monitoring in an academic anesthesia department. Anesth Analg. 2014 Aug;119(2):323-331. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000261. PubMed 24878683 ↗
  • Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Greenberg SB, Avram MJ, Vender JS. Residual neuromuscular blockade and critical respiratory events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesth Analg. 2008 Jul;107(1):130-7. doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31816d1268. PubMed 18635478 ↗
  • Berg H, Roed J, Viby-Mogensen J, Mortensen CR, Engbaek J, Skovgaard LT, Krintel JJ. Residual neuromuscular block is a risk factor for postoperative pulmonary complications. A prospective, randomised, and blinded study of postoperative pulmonary complications after atracurium, vecuronium and pancuronium. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Oct;41(9):1095-1103. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1997.tb04851.x. PubMed 9366929 ↗
  • Eriksson LI. Reduced hypoxic chemosensitivity in partially paralysed man. A new property of muscle relaxants? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996 May;40(5):520-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1996.tb04482.x. PubMed 8792879 ↗
  • Sundman E, Witt H, Olsson R, Ekberg O, Kuylenstierna R, Eriksson LI. The incidence and mechanisms of pharyngeal and upper esophageal dysfunction in partially paralyzed humans: pharyngeal videoradiography and simultaneous manometry after atracurium. Anesthesiology. 2000 Apr;92(4):977-84. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200004000-00014. PubMed 10754616 ↗
  • Eriksson LI, Sato M, Severinghaus JW. Effect of a vecuronium-induced partial neuromuscular block on hypoxic ventilatory response. Anesthesiology. 1993 Apr;78(4):693-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199304000-00012. PubMed 8096684 ↗
  • Arbous MS, Meursing AE, van Kleef JW, de Lange JJ, Spoormans HH, Touw P, Werner FM, Grobbee DE. Impact of anesthesia management characteristics on severe morbidity and mortality. Anesthesiology. 2005 Feb;102(2):257-68; quiz 491-2. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200502000-00005. PubMed 15681938 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedDate before it movedWhere the date was before it moved

Start is estimated for Sep 2026; primary completion for Dec 2027, 15 months later.

Since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026, the dates moved once, on Sep 29, 2026: start Aug 2026 → Sep 2026 and primary completion Aug 2026 → Dec 2027.

Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Aug 2, 2026
First posted
Aug 6, 2026
StartEst.
Sep 24, 2026was Aug 2026
Primary completionEst.
Dec 31, 2027was Aug 2026
CompletionEst.
Dec 31, 2027
Last update
Sep 29, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Start date
Aug 10, 2026→Sep 24, 2026
Sep 29, 2026
Primary completion
Aug 10, 2026→Dec 31, 2027
Sep 29, 2026
Interventions
Changed Mechanomiograph→Mechanomiograph (MMG); Electromiograph→Electromiograph (EMG)
Sep 29, 2026
Primary outcomes
1 description edited
What changed in the outcomes
  • Descriptionconcordance between the two devices.: how it is measured was reworded
Sep 29, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Sep 29, 2026
    Start date Aug 10, 2026→Sep 24, 2026
    Primary completion Aug 10, 2026→Dec 31, 2027
    Primary outcomes 1 description edited
    What changed in the outcomes
    • Descriptionconcordance between the two devices.: how it is measured was reworded
    Interventions Changed Mechanomiograph→Mechanomiograph (MMG); Electromiograph→Electromiograph (EMG)
    + 3 other changes: verification date, responsible party and description

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07750405
Lead sponsor
University of Debrecen
Responsible party
Pongrácz Adrienn (MD, Anesthesiologist and intensive care specialist, PhD, University of Debrecen) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 6, 2026
Start date
Sep 24, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Dec 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Sep 29, 2026

Study contacts

Béla Fülesdi, MD
Contact
fulesdi@med.unideb.hu
+36303838557
Erzsébet Igbonu-Nagy
Contact
nagyboske@med.unideb.hu
+36203991551
László Asztalos, MD
study director · University of Debrecen, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
László Asztalos, MD
principal investigator · University of Debrecen, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion