ASNM Position Statement: Intraoperative Monitoring of Auditory Evoked Potentials

The "state of the art" of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: An Italian neurosurgical survey

Introduction

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring (IOM) is widely used in neurosurgery but specific guidelines are lacking. Therefore, we can assume differences in IOM application between Neurosurgical centers.

Research question

The section of Functional Neurosurgery of the Italian Society of Neurosurgery realized a survey aiming to obtain general data on the current practice of IOM in Italy.

Materials and methods

A 22-item questionnaire was designed focusing on: volume procedures, indications, awake surgery, experience, organization and equipe. The questionnaire has been sent to Italian Neurosurgery centers.

Results

A total of 54 centers completed the survey. The annual volume of surgeries range from 300 to 2000, and IOM is used in 10-20% of the procedures. In 46% of the cases is a neurologist or a neurophysiologist who performs IOM. For supra-tentorial pathology, almost all perform MEPs (94%) SSEPs (89%), direct cortical stimulation (85%). All centers perform IOM in spinal surgery and 95% in posterior fossa surgery. Among the 50% that perform peripheral nerve surgery, all use IOM. Awake surgery is performed by 70% of centers. The neurosurgeon is the only responsible for IOM in 35% of centers. In 83% of cases IOM implementation is adequate to the request.

Discussion and conclusions

The Italian Neurosurgical centers perform IOM with high level of specialization, but differences exist in organization, techniques, and expertise. Our survey provides a snapshot of the state of the art in Italy and it could be a starting point to implement a consensus on the practice of IOM.

Recent Advances in Intraoperative Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential Monitoring during Microvascular Decompression Surgery for Hemifacial Spasm

Brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) testing during microvascular decompression (MVD) is very important in the treatment of hemifacial spasm (HFS). The reason for this is that the vestibulocochlear nerve is located immediately next to the facial nerve, so the vestibulocochlear nerve may be affected by manipulation during surgery. BAEP testing for detecting vestibulocochlear nerve damage has been further developed for use during surgery. In most HFS patients with normal vestibulocochlear nerves, the degree of vestibulocochlear nerve damage caused by surgery is well-reflected in the BAEP test waveforms. Therefore, real-time testing is the best way to minimize damage to the vestibulocochlear nerve. The purpose of this study was to review the most recently published BAEP test waveforms that were obtained during MVD surgery to determine the relationship between vestibulocochlear nerve damage and BAEP waveforms.

Intraoperative Cochlear Nerve Monitoring in Vestibular Schwannoma Microsurgery

Monitoring the cochlear nerve during vestibular schwannoma (VS) microsurgery depends on the hearing status and surgical approach. Traditional hearing preservation VS microsurgery relies on acoustically driven auditory brainstem response (ABR) and cochlear nerve action potential. Both modalities have advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper implementation. When hearing is lost or the approach violates the otic capsule, electrically evoked monitoring methods may be used. Evoked ABR (eABR) is feasible and safe but may be limited by artifact. Combining eABR with near-field measures such as electrocochleography or neural telemetry shows promise.

Intraoperative brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring during cerebellopontine angle surgery via retrosigmoid approach

OBJECTIVES

Brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) monitoring was used to identify the influence of auditory function during cerebellopontine angle (CPA) surgery for cranial neuropathy via the retrosigmoid approach.

METHODS

This prospective study included 20 patients who underwent CPA surgery for cranial neuropathy via the retrosigmoid approach with intraoperative BAEP monitoring and pure tone audiometry (PTA). The latency and interpeak latency were analyzed at each surgical step in combination with the pre- and postoperative PTA.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 17 patients. The mean pre- and postoperative PTA values were 25.65 dB and 20.70 dB, respectively. Two patients (2/17, 11.76%) developed hearing loss postoperatively. The latency of wave І significantly changed during direct auditory nerve manipulation and at the end of the surgery, while that of wave III only changed during direct auditory nerve manipulation. The appearance of wave V peak was delayed during CPA surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

CPA surgery for cranial neuropathy via the retrosigmoid approach can cause hearing loss to varying degrees, and intraoperative BAEP monitoring can reduce the occurrence of hearing loss. Intraoperative hearing function can be estimated by the latency of wave I. Hearing loss due to stretching of the brainstem can be estimated by the latency of wave III, and wave V is an early indicator of intraoperative hearing loss. Waves I and III remained stable both pre- and postoperatively, whereas wave V was unstable despite no surgery. Therefore, a precise operation and well-defined operative steps for surgeons during CPA surgery could facilitate maximal preservation of the anatomical structure and function.

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring during Microvascular Decompression Surgery for Hemifacial Spasm

Hemifacial spasm (HFS) is due to the vascular compression of the facial nerve at its root exit zone (REZ). Microvascular decompression (MVD) of the facial nerve near the REZ is an effective treatment for HFS. In MVD for HFS, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (INM) has two purposes. The first purpose is to prevent injury to neural structures such as the vestibulocochlear nerve and facial nerve during MVD surgery, which is possible through INM of brainstem auditory evoked potential and facial nerve electromyography (EMG). The second purpose is the unique feature of MVD for HFS, which is to assess and optimize the effectiveness of the vascular decompression. The purpose is achieved mainly through monitoring of abnormal facial nerve EMG that is called as lateral spread response (LSR) and is also partially possible through Z-L response, facial F-wave, and facial motor evoked potentials. Based on the information regarding INM mentioned above, MVD for HFS can be considered as a more safe and effective treatment.

Intraoperative Monitoring of the Cochlear Nerve during Neurofibromatosis Type-2 Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery and Description of a "Test Intracochlear Electrode"

Objectives  A decision on whether to insert a cochlear implant can be made in neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) if there is objective evidence of cochlear nerve (CN) function post vestibular schwannoma (VS) excision. We aimed to develop intraoperative CN monitoring to help in this decision. Design  We describe the intraoperative monitoring of a patient with NF2 and our stimulating and recording set up. A novel test electrode is used to stimulate the CN electrically. Setting  This study was set at a tertiary referral center for skull base pathology. Main outcome measure  Preserved auditory brainstem responses leading to cochlear implantation. Results  Electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR) waveforms will be displayed from different stages of the operation. A cochlear implant was inserted at the same sitting based on the EABR. Conclusion  Electrically evoked CN monitoring can provide objective evidence of CN function after VS excision and aid in the decision-making process of hearing rehabilitation in patients who will be rendered deaf.

Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials' Diagnostic Accuracy for Hearing Loss: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Microvascular decompression (MVD) utilizes brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) intraoperative monitoring to reduce the risk of iatrogenic hearing loss. Studies report varying efficacy and hearing loss rates during MVD with intraoperative monitoring. Objectives This study aims to perform a comprehensive review and study of diagnostic accuracy of BAEPs during MVD to predict hearing loss in studies published from January 1984 to December 2013. Methods The PubMed/MEDLINE and World Science databases were searched. Studies performed MVD for trigeminal neuralgia, hemifacial spasm, glossopharyngeal neuralgia or geniculate neuralgia and monitored intraoperative BAEPs to prevent hearing loss. Retrospectively, BAEP parameters were compared with postoperative hearing. The diagnostic accuracy of significant change in BAEPs, which includes loss of response, was tested using summary receiver operative curve and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Results A total of 13 studies were included in the analysis with a total of 2,540 cases. Loss of response pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR with 95% confidence interval being 74% (60-84%), 98% (88-100%), and 69.3 (18.2-263%), respectively. The similar significant change results were 88% (77-94%), 63% (40-81%), and 9.1 (3.9-21.6%). Conclusion Patients with hearing loss after MVD are more likely to have shown loss of BAEP responses intraoperatively. Loss of responses has high specificity in evaluating hearing loss. Patients undergoing MVD should have BAEP monitoring to prevent hearing loss.

Intraoperative monitoring for intracranial aneurysms: the Michigan experience

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is routinely used during the repair (endovascular or microsurgical) of intracranial aneurysms at major centers. There is a continued need of data sets from institutions with dedicated intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring services to further define the predictive factors of postoperative neurological deficits. We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed our database of all patients who underwent repair of intracranial aneurysms (endovascular or microsurgical). A total of 406 patients underwent 470 procedures. The changes were noted during monitoring in 3.83% of the cases. Most of the changes were first detected in somatosensory evoked potential (88.89%) followed by brainstem auditory evoked potential (16.67%). Changes were completely reversible in 44.44%, only partly reversible in 22.22%, and irreversible in 33.33% of cases. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring changes demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value for postoperative neurological deficits. The association between intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring changes and Glasgow outcome scale was significant for reversible changes compared against irreversible and partly reversible changes. Presence of any intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring modality change during repair of intracranial aneurysm may suggest a higher risk for postoperative neurological deficits. Reversibility of the changes is a favorable marker, whereas irreversible changes are predictive of postoperative neurological deficits with deterioration of Glasgow outcome scale on a longer follow-up.

Neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring in neurosurgery: aid or handicap?

Object

Neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring (IOM) is regarded as a useful tool to provide information about physiological changes during surgery in eloquent areas of the nervous system, to increase safety and reduce morbidity. Nevertheless, numerous older studies report that very few patients benefit from IOM, and that there are high rates of false-positive and false-negative changes of neurophysiological parameters during surgery. There is an ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of neurophysiological IOM. This questionnaire study was performed to evaluate the attitude of neurosurgeons toward neurophysiological IOM and the availability of this tool.

Methods

One hundred fifty neurosurgeons from 60 institutions in 16 countries were asked to answer anonymously a questionnaire with 11 questions. The questionnaire covered aspects of personal experience, the neurosurgical institution, and availability of neurophysiological IOM as well as asking the surgeon's opinion of the procedure.

Results

One hundred nine questionnaires were returned (73%). Seven questionnaires were excluded because of failure to complete the form correctly or completely, leaving 102 respondents from 44 institutions in 16 countries in the study; 79.5% of the included institutions provided neurophysiological IOM. Young neurosurgeons did not put more trust in IOM than experienced neurosurgeons. With growing IOM experience, surgeons seem to allow less influence of the findings on the course of their operation. At large institutions in which > 1500 operations per year are done, IOM is performed by the neurosurgeons themselves in most cases. In institutions with fewer operations, the IOM team consists mostly of nonneurosurgeons. Regardless of the availability of neurophysiological IOM, all surgeons stated that IOM is gaining increasing importance.

Conclusions

Neurophysiological IOM represents an established tool in neurosurgery. Although the importance of IOM is emphasized by the majority of neurosurgeons, the relevance of this tool to the course of the operation changes with increasing neurophysiological IOM experience.