A randomized crossover study of the effects of lidocaine on motor- and sensory-evoked potentials during spinal surgery

Intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in adolescents undergoing idiopathic scoliosis correction: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion is an established surgical procedure for the correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is standard practice for this procedure. Anesthetic agents can have different, but significant, effects on neurophysiological monitoring outcomes.

AIM

To determine if intravenous lidocaine infusion therapy has an impact on the intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

METHODS

Following ethical approval, we conducted a retrospective review of charts and the archived intraoperative neurophysiological data of adolescents undergoing posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring data included the amplitude of motor evoked potentials and the amplitude and latency of somatosensory evoked potentials. A cohort who received intraoperative lidocaine infusion were compared to those who did not.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included in this analysis, who had surgery between February 4, 2016 and April 22, 2021: 39 had intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion and 42 did not. Based on hourly snapshot data, there was no evidence that lidocaine infusion had a detrimental effect on the measured change from baseline for MEP amplitudes in either lower (mean difference 41.9; 95% confidence interval -304.5 to 388.3; p = .182) or upper limbs (MD -279.0; 95% CI -562.5 to 4.4; p = .054). There was also no evidence of any effect on the measured change from baseline for SSEP amplitudes in either lower (MD 16.4; 95% CI -17.7 to 50.5; p = .345) or upper limbs (MD -2.4; 95% CI -14.5 to 9.8; p = .701). Finally, there was no evidence of a difference in time to first reportable neurophysiological event (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 0.61 to 2.09; p = .680).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from these two cohorts provide preliminary evidence that intravenous lidocaine infusion has no negative impact on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during PSIF for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring: an updated position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) are used to assess the functional status of somatosensory pathways during surgical procedures and can help protect patients' neurological integrity intraoperatively. This is a position statement on intraoperative SEP monitoring from the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring (ASNM) and updates prior ASNM position statements on SEPs from the years 2005 and 2010. This position statement is endorsed by ASNM and serves as an educational service to the neurophysiological community on the recommended use of SEPs as a neurophysiological monitoring tool. It presents the rationale for SEP utilization and its clinical applications. It also covers the relevant anatomy, technical methodology for setup and signal acquisition, signal interpretation, anesthesia and physiological considerations, and documentation and credentialing requirements to optimize SEP monitoring to aid in protecting the nervous system during surgery.

Multimodal Analgesia and Intraoperative Neuromonitoring

Intraoperative neuromonitoring has been a valuable tool for ensuring the functional integrity of vital neural structures by providing real-time feedback to the operative team during procedures where neurological structures are at risk. Commonly used intravenous and inhaled anesthetic drugs are known to affect waveform parameters measured with various intraoperative neuromonitoring modalities. While the concept of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia has gained popularity in recent years, the impact of such a strategy on intraoperative neuromonitoring remains poorly characterized, in contrast to the more well-established concepts and literature regarding the effects of other hypnotic agents on neuromonitoring quality. The purpose of this focused review is to provide an overview of the clinical evidence pertaining to the pharmacological interaction of certain multimodal analgesics with routine intraoperative neuromonitoring modalities.

Effect of low-dose lidocaine on MEPs in patients undergoing intracranial tumor resection with propofol anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of low-dose lidocaine on motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in patients undergoing intracranial tumor resection with propofol anesthesia.

METHODS

Forty patients who underwent intracranial tumor resection and required MEP monitoring were selected. They were randomly divided into the lidocaine group (group L, n = 20) and the control group (group C, n = 20) by computer-generated randomization. All patients were given propofol anesthesia under the guidance of the bispectral index. In group L, 1 mg/kg of lidocaine was injected intravenously during anesthesia induction. Then, lidocaine was continuously pumped at a speed of 1 mg/kg/h until the operation started. Group C was given an equal volume of normal saline. Heart rate (HR), mean artery pressure (MAP), and bispectral index were recorded before anesthesia induction (T0), 2 minutes after tracheal intubation (T1), and 35 minutes (T2), and 50 minutes (T3) after anesthesia induction. The amplitude and latency of MEP at T2 and T3, the total dosage of propofol after anesthesia induction, and adverse events before T3 were recorded.

RESULTS

Compared with those in group C, HR and MAP were significantly decreased at T1 in group L. No significant differences were observed in HR and MAP at T0, T2, and T3 between group L and group C. The total dosage of propofol and the incidence of adverse events were significantly lower in group L than in group C before T3. There were no significant differences in the amplitude and latency of MEP between the 2 groups at each time point.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose lidocaine has no obvious effect on MEP in patients undergoing intracranial tumor resection. However, it increased hemodynamic stability, reduced propofol use, and decreased the incidence of adverse events.

Effects of Lidocaine on Motor-Evoked Potentials and Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials in Patients Undergoing Intraspinal Tumour Resection: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Study Design and Methods

Discussion

Impact of inhalational anesthetic agents on the baseline monitorability of motor evoked potentials during spine surgery: a review of 22,755 cervical and lumbar procedures

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

During spine surgery, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are often utilized to monitor both spinal cord function and spinal nerve root or plexus function. While there are reports evaluating the impact of anesthesia on the ability of MEPs to monitor spinal cord function, less is known about the impact of anesthesia on the ability of MEPs to monitor spinal nerve root and plexus function.

PURPOSE

To compare the baseline monitorability and amplitude of MEPs during cervical and lumbar procedures between two cohorts based on the maintenance anesthetic regimen: a total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus a regimen balanced with volatile inhalational and intravenous agents.

STUDY DESIGN

Baseline MEP data from a total of 16,559 cervical and 6,196 lumbar extradural spine procedures utilizing multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) including MEPs between January 2017 and March 2020 were obtained from a multi-institutional database. Two cohorts for each region of spine surgery were delineated based on the anesthetic regimen: a TIVA cohort and a Balanced anesthesia cohort.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Age 18 and older. Fellowship support for 65,000 for year 2021.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Percent monitorability and amplitudes of baseline MEPs.

METHODS

The baseline monitorability of each muscle MEP was evaluated by the IONM team in real-time and recorded in the patient's electronic medical record. The relation between anesthetic regimen and baseline monitorability was estimated using mixed effects logistic regression, with distinct models for cervical and lumbar procedures. Subsets of cervical and lumbar procedures from each anesthesia cohort in which all MEPs were deemed monitorable were randomly selected and the average peak-to-trough amplitude of each muscle MEP was retrospectively measured. Mixed-effects linear regression models were estimated (one each for cervical and lumbar procedures) to assess possible differences in average amplitude associated with anesthesia regimen.

RESULTS

At the time of surgery, baseline MEPs were reported monitorable from all targeted muscles in 86.8% and 83.0% of cervical and lumbar procedures, respectively, for the TIVA cohort, but were reported monitorable in just 59.3% and 61.0% of cervical and lumbar procedures, respectively, in the Balanced cohort, yielding disparities of 27.5% and 22.0%, respectively. The model-adjusted monitorability disparity between cohorts for a given muscle MEP ranged from 0.2% to 16.6% but was smallest for distal intrinsic hand and foot muscle MEPs (0.2%-1.1%) and was largest for proximal muscle MEPs (deltoid: 10.8%, biceps brachii: 8.8%, triceps: 13.0%, quadriceps: 16.6%, gastrocnemius: 7.8%, and tibialis anterior: 3.7%) where the monitorability was significantly decreased in the Balanced cohort relative to the TIVA cohort (p<.0001). Relative to the TIVA cohort, the model-adjusted amplitude of an MEP in the Balanced cohort was smaller for all muscles measured, ranging from 27.5% to 78.0% smaller. Relative to the TIVA cohort, the model-adjusted amplitude of an MEP was significantly decreased (p<.01) in the Balanced cohort for the most proximal muscles (Percent smaller: deltoid: 74.3%, biceps: 78.0%, triceps: 54.9%, quadriceps: 54.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

TIVA is the preferred anesthetic regimen for optimizing MEP monitoring during spine surgery. Inhalational agents significantly decrease MEP monitorability and amplitudes for most muscles, and this effect is especially pronounced for proximal limb muscles such as the deltoid, biceps, triceps, and quadriceps.

Perioperative Care of Patients Undergoing Major Complex Spinal Instrumentation Surgery: Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care

Evidence-based standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing complex spine surgery can improve outcomes such as enhanced patient satisfaction, reduced intensive care and hospital length of stay, and reduced costs. The Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SNACC) tasked an expert group to review existing evidence and generate recommendations for the perioperative management of patients undergoing complex spine surgery, defined as surgery on 2 or more thoracic and/or lumbar spine levels. Institutional clinical management protocols can be constructed based on the elements included in these clinical practice guidelines, and the evidence presented.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on evoked-potential monitoring in patients undergoing brain stem and supratentorial cranial surgery

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is used as adjuvant in total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), but there have been few studies concerning its effect on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during cranial surgery. Our aim was to study the effect of dexmedetomidine on IONM in patients undergoing brain stem and supratentorial cranial surgery.

METHODS

Two prospective, randomized, double-blind substudies were conducted. In substudy 1, during TIVA with an infusion of propofol and remifentanil, 10 patients received saline solution (SS) (PR group) and another 10 (PRD group) received dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg/h). Total dosage of propofol and remifentanil, intensity, latency and amplitude of motor-evoked potentials following transcranial electrical stimulation (tcMEPs) as well as somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) were recorded at baseline, 15, 30, 45 minutes, and at the end of surgery. In order to identify differences in the same patient after dexmedetomidine administration, we designed substudy 2 with 20 new patients randomized to two groups. After 30 minutes with TIVA, 10 patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg/h) and 10 patients SS. The same variables were recorded.

RESULTS

In substudy 1, propofol requirements were significantly lower (P = .004) and tcMEP intensity at the end of surgery was significantly higher in PRD group, but no statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil requirements, SSEP and tcMEP latency or amplitude. In substudy 2, no differences in any of the variables were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of dexmedetomidine at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg/h may reduce propofol requirements and adversely affect some neuromonitoring variables. However, it can be an alternative on IONM during cranial surgeries. REDEX EudraCT: 2014-000962-23.

Epidural Administration of Ropivacaine Reduces the Amplitude of Transcranial Electrical Motor-Evoked Potentials: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

An epidurally administered local anesthetic acts primarily on the epidural nerve roots and can act directly on the spinal cord through the dural sleeve. We hypothesized that epidurally administered ropivacaine would reduce the amplitude of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials by blocking nerve conduction in the spinal cord. Therefore, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

Thirty adult patients who underwent lung surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups, based on the ropivacaine concentration: the 0.2% group, the 0.375% group, and the 0.75% group. The attending anesthesiologists, neurophysiologists, and patients were blinded to the allocation. The epidural catheter was inserted at the T5-6 or T6-7 interspace by a paramedian approach, using the loss of resistance technique with normal saline. General anesthesia was induced and maintained using propofol and remifentanil. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials were elicited by a train of 5 pulses with an interstimulus interval of 2 milliseconds by using a constant-voltage stimulator and were recorded from the tibialis anterior muscle. Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) were evoked by electrical tibial nerve stimulation at the popliteal fossa. After measuring the baseline values of these evoked potentials, 10 mL of epidural ropivacaine was administered at the 0.2%, 0.375%, or 0.75% concentration. The baseline amplitudes and latencies recorded before administering ropivacaine were defined as 100%. Our primary end point was the relative amplitude of the motor-evoked potentials at 60 minutes after the epidural administration of ropivacaine. We analyzed the amplitudes and latencies of these evoked potentials by using the Kruskal-Wallis test and used the Dunn multiple comparison test as the post hoc test for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The data are expressed as the median (interquartile range). Sixty minutes after epidurally administering ropivacaine, the motor-evoked potential amplitude was lower in the 0.75% group (7% [3%-18%], between-group difference P < .001) and in the 0.375% group (52% [43%-59%]) compared to that in the 0.2% group (96% [89%-105%]). The latency of SSEP was longer in the 0.75% group compared to that in the 0.2% group, but the amplitude was unaffected.

CONCLUSIONS

Epidurally administered high-dose ropivacaine lowered the amplitude of motor-evoked potentials and prolonged the onset latencies of motor-evoked potentials and SSEPs compared to those in the low-dose group. High-dose ropivacaine can act on the motor pathway through the dura mater.

Consensus document for multimodal intraoperatory neurophisiological monitoring in neurosurgical procedures. Basic fundamentals

The present work aims to establish a guide to action, agreed by anaesthesiologists and neurophysiologists alike, to perform effective intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for procedures presenting a risk of functional neurological injury, and neurosurgical procedures. The first section discusses the main techniques currently used for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The second exposes the anaesthetic and non-anaesthetic factors that are likely to affect the electrical records of the nervous system structures. This section is followed by an analysis detailing the adverse effects associated with the most common techniques and their use. Finally, the last section describes a series of guidelines to be followed upon the various intraoperative clinical events.

Neuroanesthesia Guidelines for Optimizing Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Neuromonitoring During Deformity and Complex Spinal Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Study

STUDY DESIGN

Expert opinion-modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE

We used a modified Delphi approach to obtain consensus among leading spinal deformity surgeons and their neuroanesthesiology teams regarding optimal practices for obtaining reliable motor evoked potential (MEP) signals.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of transcranial MEPs provides the best method for assessing spinal cord integrity during complex spinal surgeries. MEPs are affected by pharmacological and physiological parameters. It is the responsibility of the spine surgeon and neuroanesthesia team to understand how they can best maintain high-quality MEP signals throughout surgery. Nevertheless, varying approaches to neuroanesthesia are seen in clinical practice.

METHODS

We identified 19 international expert spinal deformity treatment teams. A modified Delphi process with two rounds of surveying was performed. Greater than 50% agreement on the final statements was considered "agreement"; >75% agreement was considered "consensus."

RESULTS

Anesthesia regimens and protocols were obtained from the expert centers. There was a large amount of variability among centers. Two rounds of consensus surveying were performed, and all centers participated in both rounds of surveying. Consensus was obtained for 12 of 15 statements, and majority agreement was obtained for two of the remaining statements. Total intravenous anesthesia was identified as the preferred method of maintenance, with few centers allowing for low mean alveolar concentration of inhaled anesthetic. Most centers advocated for <150 μg/kg/min of propofol with titration to the lowest dose that maintains appropriate anesthesia depth based on awareness monitoring. Use of adjuvant intravenous anesthetics, including ketamine, low-dose dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine, may help to reduce propofol requirements without negatively effecting MEP signals.

CONCLUSION

Spine surgeons and neuroanesthesia teams should be familiar with methods for optimizing MEPs during deformity and complex spinal cases. Although variability in practices exists, there is consensus among international spinal deformity treatment centers regarding best practices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

Effect of anesthesia on motor responses evoked by spinal neural prostheses during intraoperative procedures

OBJECTIVE

The overall goal of this study was to investigate the effects of various anesthetic protocols on the intraoperative responses to intraspinal microstimulation (ISMS). ISMS is a neuroprosthetic approach that targets the motor networks in the ventral horns of the spinal cord to restore function after spinal cord injury. In preclinical studies, ISMS in the lumbosacral enlargement produced standing and walking by activating networks controlling the hindlimb muscles. ISMS implants are placed surgically under anesthesia, and refinements in placement are made based on the evoked responses. Anesthesia can have a significant effect on the responses evoked by spinal neuroprostheses; therefore, in preparation for clinical testing of ISMS, we compared the evoked responses under a common clinical neurosurgical anesthetic protocol with those evoked under protocols commonly used in preclinical studies.

APPROACH

Experiments were conducted in seven pigs. An ISMS microelectrode array was implanted in the lumbar enlargement and responses to ISMS were measured under three anesthetic protocols: (1) isoflurane, an agent used pre-clinically and clinically, (2) total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol as the main agent commonly used in clinical neurosurgical procedures, (3) TIVA with sodium pentobarbital, an anesthetic agent used mostly preclinically. Responses to ISMS were evaluated based on stimulation thresholds, movement kinematics, and joint torques. Motor evoked potentials (MEP) and plasma concentrations of propofol were also measured.

MAIN RESULTS

ISMS under propofol anesthesia produced large and functional responses that were not statistically different from those produced under pentobarbital anesthesia. Isoflurane, however, significantly suppressed the ISMS-evoked responses.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrated that the choice of anesthesia is critical for intraoperative assessments of motor responses evoked by spinal neuroprostheses. Propofol and pentobarbital anesthesia did not overly suppress the effects of ISMS; therefore, propofol is expected to be a suitable anesthetic agent for clinical intraoperative testing of an intraspinal neuroprosthetic system.