Tetanic Stimulation of the Peripheral Nerve before Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Can Enlarge Amplitudes of Myogenic Motor Evoked Potentials during General Anesthesia with Meeting Abstracts

Facilitation of motor evoked potentials after tetanic peripheral nerve stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Tetanic stimulation of a peripheral nerve prior to transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) may enhance motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the post-tetanic MEP (p-MEP) technique in improving MEP amplitudes.

METHODS

Conventional TES MEPs (c-MEP) and p-MEPs with left upper limb stimulation (p-MEPUL) or left lower limb stimulation (p-MEPLL) were performed in 26 patients. Bilateral hand and foot MEP amplitudes obtained with each protocol were compared. Subgroup comparisons were performed for myelopathy and peripheral neuropathy patients. Within-subject amplitude differences between c-MEP and each p-MEP technique were compared using a Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 52.7 years (range, 12-79 years). Overall, p-MEPUL resulted in MEP improvement in 25 of 26 (96%) patients, and p-MEPLL improved MEPs in 19 of 26 (73%) patients. The increase in MEP amplitudes were statistically significant in all muscle groups except left foot. Similar improvements were seen in the myelopathy group; in the neuropathy group, p-MEPUL produced similar results, but p-MEPLL did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The p-MEP technique can improve MEP amplitudes, including in patients with myelopathy. In patients with peripheral neuropathy, the results were mixed.

SIGNIFICANCE

Tetanic stimulation can enhance intraoperative MEP amplitudes.

Utility of desflurane as an anesthetic in motor-evoked potentials in spine surgery and the facilitating effect in tetanic stimulation of bilateral median nerves

Although desflurane is a safe and controllable inhalation anesthetic used in spinal surgery, to our knowledge, there have been no reports of successful motor-evoked potential (MEP) recordings under general anesthesia with desflurane alone. A high desflurane concentration may reduce the risk of intraoperative awareness but can also reduce the success of MEP recording. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the reliability of MEP monitoring and investigate whether tetanic stimulation can augment MEP amplitude under general anesthesia with high-concentration desflurane during spinal surgery. We prospectively evaluated 46 patients who were scheduled to undergo lumbar surgery at a single center between 2018 and 2020. Anesthesia was maintained with an end-tidal concentration of 4% desflurane and remifentanil. Compound muscle action potentials were recorded bilaterally from the abductor pollicis brevis, abductor hallucis, tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius, and quadriceps. For post-tetanic MEPs (p-MEPs), tetanic stimulation was applied to the median nerves (p-MEPm) and tibial nerves (p-MEPt) separately before transcranial stimulation. The average success rates for conventional MEP (c-MEP), p-MEPm, and p-MEPt were 77.9%, 80%, and 79.3%, respectively. The p-MEPm amplitudes were significantly higher than the c-MEP amplitudes in all muscles (P < 0.05), whereas the p-MEPt amplitudes were not significantly different from the c-MEP amplitudes. The MEP recording success rates for the gastrocnemius and quadriceps were inadequate. However, bilateral median nerve tetanic stimulation can effectively augment MEPs safely under general anesthesia with high-concentration desflurane in patients who undergo spinal surgery.

Which patients do we need to consider augmentation of muscle active potentials regarding transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials monitoring before spine surgery?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials (Tc-MEPs) are the current trend and are important in preventing intraoperative neurological deficits. Post-tetanic Tc-MEPs (p-MEP) can augment the amplitudes of compound muscle active potentials (CMAPs), especially in the case of insufficient conventional Tc-MEPs (c-MEP).

PURPOSE

To retrospectively investigate pre- and intraoperative factors necessitating p-MEP monitoring and to examine changes in the success rates of baseline Tc-MEP monitoring before and after tetanic stimulation in patients with such factors.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients (n=184) who underwent spinal surgery with Tc-MEP monitoring in our department between August 2020 and July 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Manual muscle testing (MMT) scores were calculated to identify patients with preoperative motor deficits. c-MEP and p-MEP amplitudes were recorded from the defined muscles.

METHODS

We compared preoperative and intraoperative factors between the c-MEP and p-MEP groups (study 1). In cases where the factors were identified, we investigated the success rate of the baseline MEP measurement of each muscle before and after tetanic stimulation (study 2).

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-seven patients were included. Of those, 87 showed sufficient CMAPs with c-MEP. Meanwhile, 70 needed p-MEP because of insufficient CMAPs. In univariate analysis, cervical/thoracic surgery (p<.001), preoperative MMT 3 or below (p=.009), shorter duration of illness (p=.037), previous cerebrovascular disease (p=.014), and dialysis (p=.031) were significantly associated with p-MEP group. Preoperative MMT 3 or below was the only factor requiring p-MEP (odds ratio, 3.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-8.73, p=.014) in multivariate analysis. In the p-MEP group, 24 patients had preoperative motor deficits; 16 patients with complete data were included in the analysis (study 2). The success rates of MEP monitoring before and after tetanic stimulation of the entire lower-extremity muscles were 42.7 and 57.3%, respectively (p<.001). The success rates for each muscle before and after tetanic stimulation were abductor pollicis brevis: 81.3% and 96.9%, tibialis anterior: 34.4% and 50.0%, gastrocnemius: 25% and 40.6%, and abductor hallucis: 68.8% and 81.3%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in success rates for any of the muscles.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with preoperative MMT 3 or below highly needed p-MEP. The success rate of baseline MEP monitoring increased with tetanic stimulation, even in patients with preoperative motor deficits. We believe that p-MEP monitoring can result in reliable CMAP recording, especially in cases of preoperative motor deficits with MMT scores of 3 or below.

Updated review on the use of neuromuscular blockade during intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring in the modern anesthesia era

Transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials (Tc-MEP) monitoring is a common practice in neurosurgery to prevent postoperative neurological damage. However, the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) during Tc-MEP monitoring is a subject of controversy. In addition, the effectiveness of sugammadex, a selective reversal agent, in the context of Tc-MEP monitoring requires further investigation. This review aimed to clarify the considerations involved in achieving optimal Tc-MEP monitoring while ensuring patient safety. Preoperative patient selection, comorbidity assessment, motor power evaluation, and the nature of the planned surgery are critical factors. Accurate paralysis assessment, continuous NMBA infusion, and post-tetanic stimulation techniques are essential for achieving optimal partial NMB. The decision to administer an NMB during Tc-MEP monitoring necessitates a careful evaluation of the balance between accuracy and potential complications. This review emphasizes the challenges associated with NMB administration during Tc-MEP monitoring and highlights the need for personalized patient assessment.

Tetanic stimulation of the pudendal nerve prior to transcranial electrical stimulation augments the amplitude of motor evoked potentials during pediatric neurosurgery

OBJECTIVE

Reportedly, tetanic stimulation prior to transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) facilitates elicitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) by a mechanism involving increased corticomotoneuronal excitability in response to somatosensory input. However, the posttetanic MEP following stimulation of a pure sensory nerve has never been reported. Furthermore, no previous reports have described posttetanic MEPs in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of posttetanic MEPs in pediatric neurosurgery patients and to compare the effects on posttetanic MEP after tetanic stimulation of the sensory branch of the pudendal nerve versus the standard median and tibial nerves, which contain a mixture of sensory and motor fibers.

METHODS

In 31 consecutive pediatric patients with a mean age of 6.0 ± 5.1 years who underwent lumbosacral surgery, MEPs were elicited by TES without tetanic stimulation (conventional MEPs [c-MEPs]) and following tetanic stimulation of the unilateral median and tibial nerves (mt-MEPs) and the sensory branch of the pudendal nerve (p-MEP). Compound muscle action potentials were elicited from abductor pollicis brevis (APB), gastrocnemius (Gc), tibialis anterior (TA), and adductor hallucis (AH) muscles. The success rate of monitoring each MEP and the increases in the ratios of mt-MEP and p-MEP to c-MEP were investigated.

RESULTS

The success rate of monitoring p-MEPs was higher than those of mt-MEPs and c-MEPs (87.5%, 72.6%, and 63.3%, respectively; p < 0.01, adjusted by Bonferroni correction). The mean increase in the ratio of p-MEP to c-MEP for all muscles was significantly higher than that of mt-MEP to c-MEP (3.64 ± 4.03 vs 1.98 ± 2.23, p < 0.01). Subanalysis of individual muscles demonstrated significant differences in the increases in the ratios between p-MEP and mt-MEP in the APB bilaterally, as well as ipsilateral Gc, contralateral TA, and bilateral AH muscles.

CONCLUSIONS

Tetanic stimulation prior to TES can augment the amplitude of MEPs during pediatric neurosurgery, the effect being larger with pudendal nerve stimulation than tetanic stimulation of the unilateral median and tibial nerves. TES elicitation of p-MEPs might be useful in pediatric patients in whom it is difficult to elicit c-MEPs.

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve augments motor evoked potentials by re-exciting spinal anterior horn cells

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve, immediately prior to conducting transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (TES-MEP), increases MEP amplitudes in both innervated and uninnervated muscles by the stimulated peripheral nerve; this is known as the remote augmentation of MEPs. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying the remote augmentation of MEPs remain unclear. Although one hypothesis was that remote augmentation of MEPs results from increased motoneuronal excitability at the spinal cord level, the effect of spinal anterior horn cells has not yet been investigated. We aimed to investigate the effect of tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve on spinal cord anterior horn cells by analyzing the F-wave. We included 34 patients who underwent elective spinal surgeries and compared the changes in F-waves and TES-MEPs pre- and post-tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. F-wave analyses were recorded by stimulating the median and tibial nerves. TES-MEPs and F-wave analyses were compared between baseline and post-tetanic stimulation time periods using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A significant augmentation of MEPs, independent of the level corresponding to the median nerve, was demonstrated. Furthermore, F-wave persistence was significantly increased not only in the median nerve but also in the tibial nerve after tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. The increased F-wave persistence indicates an increase of re-excited motor units in spinal anterior horn cells. These results confirm the hypothesis that tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve may cause remote augmentation of MEPs, primarily by increasing the excitability of the anterior horn cells.

Bite injuries caused by transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials' monitoring: incidence, associated factors, and clinical course

PURPOSE

The incidence of bite injuries associated with transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials monitoring reportedly ranges from 0.13 to 0.19%. However, in clinical practice, bite injuries appear to occur more frequently than previously reported. Our aim was to identify the incidence of and perioperative risk factors associated with bite injuries caused by transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potential monitoring.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective surgery with transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potential monitoring at a single tertiary hospital in Japan between June 2017 and December 2017 were included in this study. All patients were assessed by oral surgeons preoperatively and postoperatively. The associated factors with bite injuries were explored by the univariate analysis.

RESULTS

12 of 186 patients experienced 13 bite injuries, including three lip, six oral mucosa, and four tongue injuries. No patient required suture repair. 11 of 12 patients had uneventful postoperative courses and were cured within 12 postoperative days. One patient with a tongue ulcer and a hematoma had difficulty in oral intake and persistent dysgeusia. Patient severe movement during transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potential monitoring was associated with bite injuries (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of bite injuries assessed by oral surgeons was 6.5% in patients with transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potential monitoring, and the patients with severe movement during the monitoring tended to incur bite injuries. In rare cases, transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potential monitoring may cause difficulty in oral intake and dysgeusia.

Post-tetanic transcranial motor evoked potentials augment the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials recorded from innervated and non-innervated muscles

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Transcranial electrical stimulation used to produce motor evoked potentials (TES-MEPs) and subsequent compound muscle action potential (CMAP) recording is widely used to monitor motor function during surgery when there is risk of damaging the spinal cord. Nonetheless, some muscles do not produce CMAP amplitudes sufficient for intraoperative monitoring.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the utility of tetanic stimulation at single and multiple peripheral nerve sites for augmenting CMAP amplitudes recorded from innervated and non-innervated muscles.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective study was carried out.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study sample comprised 24 patients with cervical myelopathy who underwent decompression surgery at our department between November 2005 and March 2007.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Compound muscle action potential amplitude was a physiological measure.

METHODS

We used two patterns of tetanic peripheral nerve stimulation for each patient. The first pattern consisted of tetanic stimulation of the left tibial nerve only (Pattern 1), and the second pattern consisted of tetanic stimulation of the bilateral median nerves and left tibial nerve (Pattern 2).

RESULTS

Compound muscle action potential amplitudes from all muscles were augmented by both tetanic stimulation patterns compared with conventional TES-MEP recording; however, Pattern 2 elicited the greatest augmentation of CMAP amplitudes, especially for CMAPs recorded from the bilateral abductor pollicis brevis muscles.

CONCLUSIONS

Although tetanic stimulation of a single peripheral nerve increased CMAP amplitudes recorded from both innervated and non-innervated muscles, CMAP amplitudes were best augmented when the corresponding nerve received tetanic stimulation. Additionally, tetanic stimulation of multiple nerves rather than a single nerve appears to provide better augmentation.

A multi-train electrical stimulation protocol facilitates transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials and increases induction rate and reproducibility even in patients with preoperative neurological deficits

This study sought to evaluate the facilitation effect of repetitive multi-train transcranial electrical stimulation (mt-TES) at 2 repetition rates on transcranial electrical motor evoked potential (Tc-MEP) monitoring during spinal surgery, and to assess the induction rate in patients with impaired motor function from a compromised spinal cord or spinal nerve. We studied 32 consecutive patients with impaired motor function undergoing cervical or thoracic spinal surgery (470 muscles). A series of 10 TESs with 5 pulse trains were preoperatively delivered at 2 repetition rates (1 and 5 Hz). All peak-topeak amplitudes of the MEPs of the upper and lower extremity muscles elicited by the 10 TESs were measured. The induction rates of the lower extremity muscles were also assessed with muscle and preoperative lower extremity motor function scores. In each of the muscles, MEP amplitudes were augmented by about 2-3 times at 1 Hz and 5-6 times at 5 Hz. Under the 5-Hz condition, all limb muscles showed significant amplification. Also, in all preoperative motor function score groups, the amplitudes and induction rates of the lower extremity muscles were significantly increased. Moreover, the facilitation effects tended to peak in the last half of the series of 10 TESs. In all score groups of patients with preoperative neurological deficits, repetitive mt-TES delivered at a frequency of 5 Hz markedly facilitated the MEPs of all limb muscles and increased the induction rate. We recommend this method to improve the reliability of intraoperative monitoring during spinal surgery.

Efficacy and safety of novel high-frequency multi-train stimulation for recording transcranial motor evoked potentials in a rat model

Recently, low-frequency multi-train stimulation (MTS) was shown to effectively enhance transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs). In contrast, high- frequency double-train stimulation was reported to elicit a marked facilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of high-frequency MTS in the augmentation of potentials. In addition, we investigated the safety of high-frequency MTS, behaviorally and histologically. TcMEPs were recorded from the triceps surae muscle in 38 rats. A multipulse stimulus was delivered repeatedly at different rates (2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 Hz), and was defined as MTS. A conditioned taste aversion method was used to investigate the effect of high-frequency MTS on learning and memory function. Subsequently, animals were sacrificed, and the brains were removed and examined using the standard hematoxylin-eosin method. Compared with conventional single train stimulation, TcMEP amplitudes increased 1.3, 2.1, 1.9, and 2.0 times on average with 5, 10, 20, and 50 Hz stimulation, respectively. The aversion index was >0.8 in all animals after they received 100 high-frequency MTSs. Histologically, no pathological changes were evident in the rat brains. High-frequency MTS shows potential to effectively enhance TcMEP responses, and to be used safely in transcranial brain stimulation.

Effect of peripheral nerve tetanic stimulation on the inter-trial variability and accuracy of transcranial motor-evoked potential in brain surgery

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the advantages of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential (p-MEP) and conventional motor-evoked potential (c-MEP) in terms of MEP inter-trial variability and accuracy.

METHODS

c-MEP and p-MEP were quantified in subjects who underwent brain surgery. c-MEP was generated by transcranial electrical stimulation (TES). p-MEP was generated using a preconditioning process involving tetanic stimulation at the left tibial nerve followed by TES. The presence of significant MEP deterioration was monitored during major surgical process. An additional 5-8 MEP obtained after major surgical process were used to analyze amplitude parameters such as mean, standard deviation, range, coefficient of variation (CV), and range to mean ratio.

RESULTS

When only irreversible MEP deteriorations were considered as positive results, the false-positive rate was identical for p-MEP and c-MEP. When total MEP deteriorations were considered as positive results, the false-positive rate of p-MEP was lower and p-MEP had higher specificity than c-MEP. The mean amplitude of p-MEP was significantly higher than that of c-MEP. The CV and range to mean ratio of p-MEP were less than those of c-MEP.

CONCLUSION

The p-MEP technique is useful for augmenting MEP amplitude and reducing inter-trial variability.

SIGNIFICANCE

p-MEP has clinical significance as a useful technique for intraoperative monitoring.

Basic Principles and Recent Trends of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring

Transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs), which are muscle action potentials elicited by transcranial brain stimulation, have been the most popular method for the last decade to monitor the functional integrity of the motor system during surgery. It was originally difficult to record reliable and reproducible potentials under general anesthesia, especially when inhalation-based anesthetic agents that suppressed the firing of anterior horn neurons were used. Advances in anesthesia, including the introduction of intravenous anesthetic agents, and progress in stimulation techniques, including the use of pulse trains, improved the reliability and reproducibility of TcMEP responses. However, TcMEPs are much smaller in amplitude compared with compound muscle action potentials evoked by maximal peripheral nerve stimulation, and vary from one trial to another in clinical practice, suggesting that only a limited number of spinal motor neurons innervating the target muscle are excited in anesthetized patients. Therefore, reliable interpretation of the critical changes in TcMEPs remains difficult and controversial. Additionally, false negative cases have been occasionally encountered. Recently, several facilitative techniques using central or peripheral stimuli, preceding transcranial electrical stimulation, have been employed to achieve sufficient depolarization of motor neurons and augment TcMEP responses. These techniques might have potentials to improve the reliability of intraoperative motor pathway monitoring using TcMEPs.

Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Evaluate the Motor Pathways After an Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury and to Predict the Recovery of Intraoperative Transcranial Electrical Motor Evoked Potentials: A Case Report

The authors report a case of unilateral loss of intraoperative transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (TES MEP) associated with a spinal cord injury during scoliosis correction and the subsequent use of extraoperative transcranial magnetic stimulation to monitor the recovery of spinal cord function. The authors demonstrate the absence of TES MEPs and absent transcranial magnetic stimulation responses in the immediate postoperative period, and document the partial recovery of transcranial magnetic stimulation responses, which corresponded to partial recovery of TES MEPs. Intraoperative TES MEPs were enhanced using spatial facilitation technique, which enabled the patient to undergo further surgery to stabilize the spine and correct her scoliosis. This case report supports evidence of the use of extraoperative transcranial magnetic stimulation to predict the presence of intraoperative TES responses and demonstrates the usefulness of spatial facilitation to monitor TES MEPs in a patient with a preexisting spinal cord injury.

Augmentation of motor evoked potentials using multi-train transcranial electrical stimulation in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spinal surgery

Transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) are widely used to monitor motor function during spinal surgery. Improvements in transcranial stimulation techniques and general anesthesia have made it possible to record reliable and reproducible potentials. However, TcMEPs are much smaller in amplitude compared with compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) evoked by maximal peripheral nerve stimulation. In this study, multi-train transcranial electrical stimulation (mt-TES) was introduced to enhance TcMEPs, and the optimal setting of mt-TES was investigated. In 30 patients undergoing surgical correction of spinal deformities (4 males and 26 females with normal motor status; age range 11-75 years), TcMEPs from the abductor hallucis (AH) and quadriceps femoris (QF) were analyzed. A multipulse (train) stimulus with an individual pulse width of 0.5 ms and an inter-pulse interval of 2 ms was delivered repeatedly (2-7 times) at different rates (2, 5, and 10 Hz). TcMEP amplitudes increased with the number of train stimuli for AH, with the strongest facilitation observed at 5 Hz. The response amplitude increased 6.1 times on average compared with single-train transcranial electrical stimulation (st-TES). This trend was also observed in the QF. No adverse events (e.g., seizures, cardiac arrhythmias, scalp burns, accidental injury resulting from patient movement) were observed in any patients. Although several facilitative techniques using central or peripheral stimuli, preceding transcranial electrical stimulation, have been recently employed to augment TcMEPs during surgery, responses are still much smaller than CMAPs. Changing from conventional st-TES to mt-TES has potential to greatly enhance TcMEP responses.

Quantification of the proportion of motor neurons recruited by transcranial electrical stimulation during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring

Transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) are widely used to monitor motor function during spinal surgery. However, they are much smaller and more variable in amplitude than responses evoked by maximal peripheral nerve stimulation, suggesting that a limited number of spinal motor neurons to the target muscle are excited by transcranial stimulation. The aim of this study was to quantify the proportion of motor neurons recruited during TcMEP monitoring under general anesthesia. In twenty patients who underwent thoracic and/or lumbar spinal surgery with TcMEP monitoring, the triple stimulation technique (TST) was applied to the unilateral upper arm intraoperatively. Total intravenous anesthesia was employed. Trains of four stimuli were delivered with maximal intensity and an inter-pulse interval of 1.5 ms. TST responses were recorded from the abductor digiti minimi muscle, and the negative peak amplitude and area were measured and compared between the TST test (two collisions between transcranial and proximal and distal peripheral stimulation) and control response (two collisions between two proximal and one distal peripheral stimulation). The highest degree of superimposition of the TST test and control responses was chosen from several trials per patient. The average ratios (test:control) were 17.1 % (range 1.8-38 %) for the amplitudes and 21.6 % (range 2.9-40 %) for the areas. The activity of approximately 80 % of the motor units to the target muscle cannot be detected by TcMEP monitoring. Therefore, changes in evoked potentials must be interpreted cautiously when assessing segmental motor function with TcMEP monitoring.

Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Review of the literature with analysis of pooled data.

OBJECTIVE

To assess common intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM) changes that occur during the course of spinal surgery, potential causes of change, and determine appropriate responses. Further, there will be discussion of appropriate application of IOM, and medical legal aspects. The structured literature review will answer the following questions: What are the various IOM methods currently available for spinal surgery? What are the sensitivities and specificities of each modality for neural element injury? How are the changes in each modality best interpreted? What is the appropriate response to indicated changes? Recommendations will be made as to the interpretation and appropriate response to IOM changes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Total number of abstracts identified and reviewed was 187. Full review was performed on 18 articles.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was queried using the search terms IOM, spinal surgery, SSEP, wake-up test, MEP, spontaneous and triggered electromyography alone and in various combinations. Abstracts were identified and reviewed. Individual case reports were excluded. Detailed information and data from appropriate articles were assessed and compiled.

RESULTS

Ability to achieve IOM baseline data varied from 70% to 98% for somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) and 66% to 100% for motor-evoked potentials (MEP) in absence of neural axis abnormality. Multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring (MIOM) provided false negatives in 0% to 0.79% of cases, whereas isolated SSEP monitoring alone provided false negative in 0.063% to 2.7% of cases. MIOM provided false positive warning in 0.6% to 1.38% of cases.

CONCLUSION

As spine surgery, and patient comorbidity, becomes increasingly complex, IOM permits more aggressive deformity correction and tumor resection. Combination of SSEP and MEP monitoring provides assessment of entire spinal cord functionality in real time. Spontaneous and triggered electromyography add assessment of nerve roots. The wake-up test can continue to serve as a supplement when needed. MIOM may prove useful in preservation of neurologic function where an alteration of approach is possible. IOM is a valuable tool for optimization of outcome in complex spinal surgery.

Intraoperative neurophysiology of the motor system in children: a tailored approach

INTRODUCTION

Intraoperative neurophysiology has moved giant steps forward over the past 15 years thanks to the advent of techniques aimed to reliably assess the functional integrity of motor areas and pathways.

INTRAOPERATIVE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES

Motor evoked potentials recorded from the muscles and/or the spinal cord (D-wave) after transcranial electrical stimulation allow to preserve the integrity of descending pathways, especially the corticospinal tract (CT), during brain and spinal cord surgery. Mapping techniques allow to identify the motor cortex through direct cortical stimulation and to localize the CT at subcortical levels during brain and brainstem surgery. These techniques are extensively used in adult neurosurgery and, in their principles, can be applied to children. However, especially in younger children, the motor system is still under development, making both mapping and monitoring techniques more challenging. In this paper, we review intraoperative neurophysiological techniques commonly used in adult neurosurgery and discuss their application to pediatric neurosurgery, in the light of preliminary experience from our and other centers. The principles of development and maturation of the motor system, and especially of the CT, are reviewed focusing on clinical studies with transcranial magnetical stimulation.

Impact of anesthesia on transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring during spine surgery: a review of the literature

Object

Transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring is frequently used in complex spinal surgeries to prevent neurological injury. Anesthesia, however, can significantly affect the reliability of TcMEP monitoring. Understanding the impact of various anesthetic agents on neurophysiological monitoring is therefore essential.

Methods

A literature search of the National Library of Medicine database was conducted to identify articles pertaining to anesthesia and TcMEP monitoring during spine surgery. Twenty studies were selected and reviewed.

Results

Inhalational anesthetics and neuromuscular blockade have been shown to limit the ability of TcMEP monitoring to detect significant changes. Hypothermia can also negatively affect monitoring. Opioids, however, have little influence on TcMEPs. Total intravenous anesthesia regimens can minimize the need for inhalational anesthetics.

Conclusions

In general, selecting the appropriate anesthetic regimen with maintenance of a stable concentration of inhalational or intravenous anesthetics optimizes TcMEP monitoring.

Evaluation of reliability of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential monitoring during spinal surgery under general anesthesia

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective research.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the reliability of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential (p-MEP) monitoring in the detection of motor injury during spinal surgery with that of conventional MEP (c-MEP).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Myogenic MEPs are sensitive to suppression by anesthetics and neuromuscular blockade. Recently, we reported a new technique for MEP recording, called "p-MEP" in which MEP amplitude can be enlarged by tetanic stimulation of peripheral nerve before transcranial stimulation in comparison with that of c-MEP. The purpose of this study is to compare the reliability of p-MEP monitoring in the detection of motor injury during spinal surgery with that of c-MEP.

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing elective spinal surgery were enrolled in the study. Both c-MEP and p-MEP monitoring were performed throughout the operation in each patient. For recording c-MEPs, transcranial electrical train of five pulses stimulation with an interstimulus interval of 2 milliseconds was performed and compound muscle action potentials were bilaterally recorded from abductor pollicis brevis, abductor hallucis, tibialis anterior, and soleus muscles. For recording p-MEPs, tetanic stimulation (50 Hz, 50 mA, 5 sec) was applied to the left median nerve and bilateral tibial nerves 1 second before transcranial stimulation and compound muscle action potentials were recorded from the same muscles. The false positive, false negative, and accuracy of MEP monitoring in the detection of change in motor function were compared between p-MEP and c-MEP.

RESULTS

At the baseline, success rates of baseline c-MEP and p-MEP recording were 66.3% (53/80) and 92.5% (74/80), respectively. The false positive, false negative, and accuracy of p-MEP monitoring were 0%, 0%, and 100%, respectively, whereas c-MEP were 4%, 20%, and 95%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that p-MEP is a more reliable method to detect changes in motor function during spinal surgery under general anesthesia in comparison with c-MEP.

The effects of the neuromuscular blockade levels on amplitudes of posttetanic motor-evoked potentials and movement in response to transcranial stimulation in patients receiving propofol and fentanyl anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Patient movement in response to transcranial stimulation during monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) may interfere with surgery. We recently reported a new technique to augment the amplitudes of myogenic MEPs, called "post-tetanic MEPs (p-MEPs)," in which tetanic stimulation of a peripheral nerve was applied prior to transcranial stimulation. We conducted the present study to determine an appropriate level of neuromuscular blockade during the monitoring of p-MEPs with a focus on patient movement.

METHODS

In 15 patients under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia, conventional MEPs (c-MEPs) and p-MEPs in response to transcranial electrical stimulation were recorded from the abductor hallucis muscle. For p-MEP recording, tetanic stimulation to the posterior tibial nerve at an intensity of 50 mA for 5 s was started 6 s prior to transcranial stimulation. The level of neuromuscular blockade was assessed by recording the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials (T1) from the abductor hallucis brevis muscle in response to supramaximal electrical stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist. After the baseline recordings of c-MEP and p-MEP at a T1 of 50% of control, 0.1 mg/kg of vecuronium was injected and the amplitudes of c-MEPs and p-MEPs were recorded. Patient movement was also assessed with the movement score ranging from 1 to 4 (1 = no movement, 4 = severe movement).

RESULTS

T1, %T1, the amplitudes of c-MEPs and p-MEPs, and the movement score changed in parallel after the administration of vecuronium. The amplitudes of p-MEPs before and 15-45 min after the administration of vecuronium were significantly higher than those of c-MEPs. When T1 and %T1 were less than and equal to 1 mV and 10%, respectively, the movement score was 1 or 2 in all patients, indicating that microscopic surgery was possible without the interruption of surgical procedures. When T1 was around 1 mV (0.8-1.2 mV), the success rates of recording of c-MEPs and p-MEPs were 73% (11 of 15) and 100% (15 of 15), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia, p-MEP could be recorded at a T1 of 1 mV, in which patient movement in response to transcranial stimulation did not interfere with surgery. This technique may be used in patients without preoperative motor deficits, in which patient movement during surgical procedures is not preferable.

Intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials in children undergoing spinal surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical case series.

OBJECTIVE

To study the combined use of modifications of stimulation methods and adjustments of anesthetic regimens on the reliability of motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring in a large group of children undergoing spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Monitoring of MEPs is advocated during spinal surgery, but systematic data from children are sparse.

METHODS

A total of 134 consecutive procedures in 108 children <18 years of age were analyzed. MEPs were elicited by transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and supplemented by temporal and spatial facilitation. The standard anesthesia regimen consisted of propofol, nitrous oxide, and remifentanil. Propofol was replaced with ketamine if no reliable MEPs could be recorded. In children <6 years of age, a ketamine-based anesthesia was used.

RESULTS

With temporal facilitation alone, reliable MEPs were obtained in 78% (105 of 134) of the procedures and, if combined with spatial facilitation, in 96% (129 of 134) of the procedures. Reliable MEPs were documented in 98% (111 of 113) of children >6 years and in 86% (18 of 21) in children <6 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining spatial facilitation with a TES protocol improved monitoring of corticospinal motor pathways during spinal surgery in children. A ketamine-based anesthetic technique was preferred in children <6 years of age.