STUDY DESIGN: Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials are used routinely to monitor the spinal cord during spine surgery. This study investigates the differential sensory-motor contribution by using collision techniques. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that neurogenic mixed evoked potentials do contain a motor component. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal cord monitoring is now routinely used during spine deformity surgery. Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials (i.e., potentials recorded from lower limb nerves after spinal cord stimulation) represent a reliable and sensitive technique. However, their specificity (sensory and motor spinal pathways) remains debated. METHODS: Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials and collisions were performed in 24 consecutive patients during scoliosis surgery. Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials were elicited by a high thoracic spinal test stimulation and recorded from the tibial nerve at the ankle. A peripheral conditioning stimulation was delivered at the popliteal fossa 15 ms before spinal stimulation, inducing an ascending volley. The antidromic ascending motor component stops at the anterior horn cell level, whereas the orthodromic sensory component reaches the dorsal columns. The 15-ms interstimulus interval between peripheral conditioning and spinal test stimulation makes the collision with descending volleys occur in the spinal cord. The descending sensory volley is blocked, whereas the descending motor volley is unaffected. RESULTS: Reproducible evoked potentials were recorded from the tibial nerve in all the patients studied when the conditioning stimulation was performed. These conditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials consist of a small and polyphasic wave whose amplitude represents approximately 26% that of the wave of unconditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials. It is likely that they correspond to motor spinal pathway activation. CONCLUSION: Both standard and conditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials are proposed to provide combined sensory and motor spinal pathway monitoring.
STUDY DESIGN: Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials are used routinely to monitor the spinal cord during spine surgery. This study investigates the differential sensory-motor contribution by using collision techniques. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that neurogenic mixed evoked potentials do contain a motor component. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal cord monitoring is now routinely used during spine deformity surgery. Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials (i.e., potentials recorded from lower limb nerves after spinal cord stimulation) represent a reliable and sensitive technique. However, their specificity (sensory and motor spinal pathways) remains debated. METHODS: Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials and collisions were performed in 24 consecutive patients during scoliosis surgery. Neurogenic mixed evoked potentials were elicited by a high thoracic spinal test stimulation and recorded from the tibial nerve at the ankle. A peripheral conditioning stimulation was delivered at the popliteal fossa 15 ms before spinal stimulation, inducing an ascending volley. The antidromic ascending motor component stops at the anterior horn cell level, whereas the orthodromic sensory component reaches the dorsal columns. The 15-ms interstimulus interval between peripheral conditioning and spinal test stimulation makes the collision with descending volleys occur in the spinal cord. The descending sensory volley is blocked, whereas the descending motor volley is unaffected. RESULTS: Reproducible evoked potentials were recorded from the tibial nerve in all the patients studied when the conditioning stimulation was performed. These conditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials consist of a small and polyphasic wave whose amplitude represents approximately 26% that of the wave of unconditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials. It is likely that they correspond to motor spinal pathway activation. CONCLUSION: Both standard and conditioned neurogenic mixed evoked potentials are proposed to provide combined sensory and motor spinal pathway monitoring.
Authors: Pinar Yalinay Dikmen; Matthew F Halsey; Altug Yucekul; Marinus de Kleuver; Lloyd Hey; Peter O Newton; Irem Havlucu; Tais Zulemyan; Caglar Yilgor; Ahmet Alanay Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2020-11-23
Authors: Rafal Pankowski; Marek Roclawski; Krzysztof Dziegiel; Marcin Ceynowa; Marcin Mikulicz; Tomasz Mazurek; Wojciech Kloc Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.817