R S Noss1, A K Lalwani, C D Yingling. 1. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94243-0112, U.S.A. rnoss@itsa.ucsf.edu
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Intraoperative electromyographic facial nerve monitoring, long accepted as the standard of care in surgery for acoustic neuroma and other cerebellopontine angle tumors, may be of aid in middle ear and mastoid surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective series of 262 cases of middle ear/mastoid surgery in which monitoring was performed by a neurophysiologist. METHODS: Neurophysiological monitoring events were classified as mechanical or electrical. The voltages producing facial nerve stimulation were compiled and compared with observed facial nerve dehiscence. RESULTS: The most common use of monitoring was localization of the facial nerve by electrical stimulation (60%) or identification of mechanically evoked activity (39%). In 57 cases (36%), the first electrical stimulation event evoked a facial nerve response at less than 1 V threshold, indicating little or no bony covering. The minimum stimulation threshold throughout each of these cases was less than 1 V in 88 of the 159 cases (55%) in which stimulation was attempted. In contrast, the facial nerve was visibly dehiscent in only 35 cases (13%). Neurophysiological monitoring confirmed aberrant facial nerve course through the temporal bone in four cases resulting in cancellation of surgical treatment in two cases. Postoperative facial nerve function was preserved in all cases when present preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: An electrical stimulation threshold of less than 1 V is a more useful criterion of dehiscence than observation under the operating microscope. The absence of monitoring events allows safe dissection. Monitoring can help locate the facial nerve, guide the dissection and drilling, and confirm its integrity, thereby allowing more definitive surgical treatment while preserving neural function.
HYPOTHESIS: Intraoperative electromyographic facial nerve monitoring, long accepted as the standard of care in surgery for acoustic neuroma and other cerebellopontine angle tumors, may be of aid in middle ear and mastoid surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective series of 262 cases of middle ear/mastoid surgery in which monitoring was performed by a neurophysiologist. METHODS: Neurophysiological monitoring events were classified as mechanical or electrical. The voltages producing facial nerve stimulation were compiled and compared with observed facial nerve dehiscence. RESULTS: The most common use of monitoring was localization of the facial nerve by electrical stimulation (60%) or identification of mechanically evoked activity (39%). In 57 cases (36%), the first electrical stimulation event evoked a facial nerve response at less than 1 V threshold, indicating little or no bony covering. The minimum stimulation threshold throughout each of these cases was less than 1 V in 88 of the 159 cases (55%) in which stimulation was attempted. In contrast, the facial nerve was visibly dehiscent in only 35 cases (13%). Neurophysiological monitoring confirmed aberrant facial nerve course through the temporal bone in four cases resulting in cancellation of surgical treatment in two cases. Postoperative facial nerve function was preserved in all cases when present preoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: An electrical stimulation threshold of less than 1 V is a more useful criterion of dehiscence than observation under the operating microscope. The absence of monitoring events allows safe dissection. Monitoring can help locate the facial nerve, guide the dissection and drilling, and confirm its integrity, thereby allowing more definitive surgical treatment while preserving neural function.
Authors: Paul W Gidley; Jennifer Maw; Bruce Gantz; David Kaylie; Paul Lambert; Sonya Malekzadeh; Sujana S Chandrasekhar Journal: OTO Open Date: 2018-08-07