Motor evoked potential mapping and monitoring by direct brainstem stimulation

A novel method of neurophysiological brainstem mapping in neurosurgery

BACKGROUND

Brainstem mapping with electrical stimulation allows functional identification of neural structures during resection of deep lesions. Single pulses or train of pulses are delivered to map cranial nerves and corticospinal tracts, respectively.

NEW METHOD

We introduce a hybrid stimulation technique for mapping the brainstem. The stimulus consists of an electrical single pulse followed by a short train of 3-5 pulses at 500 Hz, at an interval of 60-75 ms. The responses to this stimulation pattern are recorded from appropriate cranial and limb muscles.

RESULTS

Both the single pulse and the short train elicit electromyographic responses when motor fibers or motor nuclei of the cranial nerves are stimulated. Responses to the train but not to the preceding single pulse indicate activation of the descending motor tracts, in the mesencephalon and the pons. Conversely, in the medulla, limb responses to stimulation of the corticospinal tracts are elicited by a single pulse. Identification of the extra and intra-axial courses of the trigeminal motor and sensory fibers is possible by recording responses from the masseter and the tongue muscles.

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S)

To date, either a pulse or a train is delivered during brainstem mapping, switching from one to the other modality according to the expected target structure. This procedure can be time-consuming and may even lead to false negative responses to the stimulation, eventually leading to inaccurate neurosurgical procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel hybrid pulse-train technique enhances the advantage of brainstem mapping procedure, minimizing pitfalls and improving patient safety.

Brainstem Surgery: Functional Surgical Anatomy with the Use of an Advanced Modern Intraoperative Neurophysiological Procedure

Intraoperative neurophysiology (ION) in brainstem surgery evolved as brainstem surgery advanced.The original idea of brainstem mapping (BSM) is a neurophysiological procedure to locate cranial nerve motor nuclei (CNMN) on the floor of the fourth ventricle. With the introduction of various skull base approaches to the brainstem, BSM is carried out on any surface of the brainstem to expose the safe entry zone to the intrinsic brainstem lesion. It is the modern concept of BSM, a broader definition of BSM. BSM enables to avoid direct damage to the CNMN when approaching the brainstem through the negative mapping region.The corticobulbar tract (CBT) motor evoked potential (MEP) is another ION procedure in brainstem surgery. It enables monitoring of the functional integrity of the whole cranial motor pathway without interrupting surgical procedures. Combined application of both BSM and CBT-MEP monitoring is indispensable for the functional preservation of the CNMN and their supranuclear innervation during the brainstem surgery.In this paper, the neurophysiological aspect of BSM and the CBT-MEP was fully described. Normal anatomical background of the floor of the fourth ventricle and the detail of the CBT anatomy were demonstrated to better understand their clinical usefulness, limitations, and surgical implications derived from ION procedures. Finally, a future perspective in the role of ION procedures in brainstem surgery was presented. The latest magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology can allow surgeons to find an "on the image" safe entry zone to the brainstem. However, the role of BSM and the CBT-MEP monitoring in terms of safe brainstem surgery stays unshakable. Special attention was paid for the recent trend of management in diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. A new role of BSM during a stereotactic biopsy was discussed.It is the authors' expectation that the paper enhances the clinical application of a contemporary standard of the ION in brainstem surgery and supports safer brainstem surgery more than ever and in the future.

Safety of brainstem safe entry zones: comparison of microsurgical outcomes associated with superficial, exophytic, and deep brainstem cavernous malformations

OBJECTIVE

Safe entry zones (SEZs) enable safe tissue transgression to lesions beneath the brainstem surface. However, evidence for the safety of SEZs is scarce and is based on anatomical studies, case reports, and small series.

METHODS

A cohort of 154 patients who underwent microsurgical brainstem cavernous malformation (BSCM) treatment during a 23-year period and who had preoperative MR images and intraoperative photographs or videos was retrospectively examined. This study assessed the safety of SEZs for access to deep BSCMs, preoperative MRI to predict BSCM surface proximity, and the relationships between BSCM subtype, surgical approach, and SEZs. Lesions were characterized as exophytic, superficial, or deep on the basis of preoperative MRI and intraoperative inspection. Outcomes were scored as good (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score ≤ 2) or poor (mRS score > 2) and relative outcomes as stable/improved or worse relative to baseline (± 1 point).

RESULTS

Resections included 34 (22%) in the midbrain, 102 (66%) in the pons, and 18 (12%) in the medulla. Of those, 23 (15%) were exophytic, 57 (37%) were superficial, and 74 (48%) were deep. Established SEZs were used for 97% (n = 72) of deep lesions; the preferred SEZ associated with its subtype was used for 91% (n = 67). MR images accurately depicted exophytic BSCMs that did not require SEZ approaches (sensitivity, 96%) but overestimated the proximity of lesions superficial to brainstem surfaces (specificity, 67%), resulting in unanticipated SEZ use. Final neurological outcomes were good in 80% of patients with follow-up data (119/149), and relative outcomes were stable/improved in 93% (139/149). Outcomes for patients with brainstem transgression through an SEZ did not differ from outcomes for patients with superficial or exophytic lesions that did not require SEZ use (final mRS score ≤ 2 in 72% of all patients with deep lesions vs 82% of all patients with superficial or exophytic lesions [p = 0.10]). Among patients with follow-up, the rates of permanent new cranial nerve deficits in patients with deep BSCMs and superficial or exophytic BSCMs were 21% and 20%, respectively (p = 0.81), with no significant change in overall cranial nerve deficit (0 and -1, p = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurological outcomes for patients with deep BSCMs were equivalent to those for superficial or exophytic BSCMs, validating the safety of SEZs for deep BSCMs. Preoperative T1-weighted MR images overestimated the lesion's surface proximity, necessitating detailed knowledge of SEZs and readiness to use them in cases of radiological-microsurgical discordance. Most patients achieved favorable outcomes despite the transgression of eloquent brainstem tissue in and around SEZs.

Neurophysiologic monitoring in neurosurgery

This article focuses on the application of neurophysiologic monitoring in uniquely neurosurgical procedures. Neurophysiologic monitoring provides functional testing and mapping to identify neural structures. Once identified, the functionality of the central and peripheral nervous system areas at risk for neurosurgical injury can be monitored. It discusses the use of motor-evoked potentials, sensory evoked potentials, electromyography and electroencephalography to assess neurologic change.

Subtemporal transtentorial resection of cavernous malformations involving the pyramidal tract in the upper pons and mesencephalon

BACKGROUND

Lateral approaches to the brain stem for the resection of the cavernous malformations are preferred in order to avoid the structures within the floor of the fourth ventricle. The entry behind the pyramidal tract (PT) is usually carried out through the posterolateral surface of the brain stem. The more straightforward lateral approach below the temporal lobe is used rarely because of potential risks.

METHODS

The outcome after resection of the cavernomas involving the PT in the mesencephalon and the upper pons via the subtemporal transtentorial approach in nine patients was analysed. Mapping of the PT by direct electrical stimulation was used in the last four patients.

RESULTS

The subtemporal transtentorial approach enabled adequate exposure of the lateral and anterolateral surface of the midbrain and the upper pons. No adverse events from the elevation of the temporal lobe were encountered. Direct electrical stimulation using a bipolar electrode with the parameters of 100 Hz, 1 ms, and 3-9 mA evoked motor responses in three of four patients. It allowed placing the incision in the lateral surface of the midbrain behind the PT or between the fibres of the upper and the lower extremity. No worsening of the PT functions was observed in the series.

CONCLUSIONS

The subtemporal transtentorial approach enables adequate exposure of the lateral and the anterolateral surface of the mesencephalon and upper pons, allowing neurophysiological mapping of the PT and thus avoiding its damage during removal of the cavernoma.