OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel potential component (antidromic corticospinal tract potential, ACSP) of the brain after translaminar spinal stimulation of a relaxed patient during scoliosis surgery. To study the origin of this component and to compare its source to known sources of the somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). METHODS: We studied 17 consecutive patients during posterior scoliosis surgery. SEPs and ACSPs were elicited by translaminar spinal stimulation at the Th 2 and L 1 levels. ACSPs and SEPs were recorded on the scalp midline. Neurogenic motor evoked potentials (NMEPs) were recorded on the popliteal spaces. Preoperative tibial SEPs were also recorded. RESULTS: ACSP was distinctly separated from the corresponding spinally evoked cortical SEP that showed longer latency than the ACSP. ACSPs decreased and disappeared when stimulation was moved to the caudal direction in the conus region while SEP persisted. In addition, the hemispheric origin of ACSP was confirmed with multichannel midline recordings of the scalp and neck. Thus there was no confusion to the response of nucleus gracilis, corresponding the P 31 response of the tibial nerve SEP. CONCLUSIONS: The origin of ACSP seemed to be in the rostral part of the corticospinal tract. ACSP diminished in the conus region when stimulation was moved caudally and it disappeared when the stimulus was given to the root level. This proves that ACSP is not a response of the somatosensory tract, instead ACSP represents antidromic response of the pyramidal tract. ACSP can be used in monitoring of the motor tracts during scoliosis surgery together with NMEPs.
OBJECTIVE: To describe a novel potential component (antidromic corticospinal tract potential, ACSP) of the brain after translaminar spinal stimulation of a relaxed patient during scoliosis surgery. To study the origin of this component and to compare its source to known sources of the somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). METHODS: We studied 17 consecutive patients during posterior scoliosis surgery. SEPs and ACSPs were elicited by translaminar spinal stimulation at the Th 2 and L 1 levels. ACSPs and SEPs were recorded on the scalp midline. Neurogenic motor evoked potentials (NMEPs) were recorded on the popliteal spaces. Preoperative tibial SEPs were also recorded. RESULTS: ACSP was distinctly separated from the corresponding spinally evoked cortical SEP that showed longer latency than the ACSP. ACSPs decreased and disappeared when stimulation was moved to the caudal direction in the conus region while SEP persisted. In addition, the hemispheric origin of ACSP was confirmed with multichannel midline recordings of the scalp and neck. Thus there was no confusion to the response of nucleus gracilis, corresponding the P 31 response of the tibial nerve SEP. CONCLUSIONS: The origin of ACSP seemed to be in the rostral part of the corticospinal tract. ACSP diminished in the conus region when stimulation was moved caudally and it disappeared when the stimulus was given to the root level. This proves that ACSP is not a response of the somatosensory tract, instead ACSP represents antidromic response of the pyramidal tract. ACSP can be used in monitoring of the motor tracts during scoliosis surgery together with NMEPs.
Authors: Selja Vaalto; Laura Säisänen; Mervi Könönen; Petro Julkunen; Taina Hukkanen; Sara Määttä; Jari Karhu Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 5.038