Francesco Sala1, Matevz J Krzan, Vedran Deletis. 1. Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Neurological Sciences and Vision, University Hospital, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37121 Verona, Italy. francescosala@yahoo.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This review is primarily based on peer-reviewed scientific publications and on the authors' experience in the field of intraoperative neurophysiology. The purpose is a critical analysis of the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (INM) during various neurosurgical procedures, emphasizing the aspects that mainly concern the pediatric population. Original papers related to the field of intraoperative neurophysiology were collected using medline. INM consists in monitoring (continuous "on-line" assessment of the functional integrity of neural pathways) and mapping (functional identification and preservation of anatomically ambiguous nervous tissue) techniques. We attempted to delineate indications for intraoperative neurophysiological techniques according to their feasibility and reliability (specificity and sensitivity). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In compiling this review, controversies about indications, methodologies and the usefulness of some INM techniques have surfaced. These discrepancies are often due to lack of familiarity with new techniques in groups from around the globe. Accordingly, internationally accepted guidelines for INM are still far from being established. Nevertheless, the studies reviewed provide sufficient evidence to enable us to make the following recommendations. (1) INM is mandatory whenever neurological complications are expected on the basis of a known pathophysiological mechanism. INM becomes optional when its role is limited to predicting postoperative outcome or it is used for purely research purposes. (2) INM should always be performed when any of the following are involved: supratentorial lesions in the central region and language-related cortex; brain stem tumors; intramedullary spinal cord tumors; conus-cauda equina tumors; rhizotomy for relief of spasticity; spina bifida with tethered cord. (3) Monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) is now a feasible and reliable technique that can be used under general anesthesia. MEP monitoring is the most appropriate technique to assess the functional integrity of descending motor pathways in the brain, the brain stem and, especially, the spinal cord. (4) Somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring is of value in assessment of the functional integrity of sensory pathways leading from the peripheral nerve, through the dorsal column and to the sensory cortex. SEPs cannot provide reliable information on the functional integrity of the motor system (for which MEPs should be used). (5) Monitoring of brain stem auditory evoked potentials remains a standard technique during surgery in the brain stem, the cerebellopontine angle, and the posterior fossa. (6) Mapping techniques (such as the phase reversal and the direct cortical/subcortical stimulation techniques) are invaluable and strongly recommended for brain surgery in eloquent cortex or along subcortical motor pathways. (7) Mapping of the motor nuclei of the VIIth, IXth-Xth and XIIth cranial nerves on the floor of the fourth ventricle is of great value in identification of "safe entry zones" into the brain stem. Techniques for mapping cranial nerves in the cerebellopontine angle and cauda equina have also been standardized. Other techniques, although safe and feasible, still lack a strong validation in terms of prognostic value and correlation with the postoperative neurological outcome. These techniques include monitoring of the bulbocavernosus reflex, monitoring of the corticobulbar tracts, and mapping of the dorsal columns. These techniques, however, are expected to open up new perspectives in the near future.
INTRODUCTION: This review is primarily based on peer-reviewed scientific publications and on the authors' experience in the field of intraoperative neurophysiology. The purpose is a critical analysis of the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (INM) during various neurosurgical procedures, emphasizing the aspects that mainly concern the pediatric population. Original papers related to the field of intraoperative neurophysiology were collected using medline. INM consists in monitoring (continuous "on-line" assessment of the functional integrity of neural pathways) and mapping (functional identification and preservation of anatomically ambiguous nervous tissue) techniques. We attempted to delineate indications for intraoperative neurophysiological techniques according to their feasibility and reliability (specificity and sensitivity). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In compiling this review, controversies about indications, methodologies and the usefulness of some INM techniques have surfaced. These discrepancies are often due to lack of familiarity with new techniques in groups from around the globe. Accordingly, internationally accepted guidelines for INM are still far from being established. Nevertheless, the studies reviewed provide sufficient evidence to enable us to make the following recommendations. (1) INM is mandatory whenever neurological complications are expected on the basis of a known pathophysiological mechanism. INM becomes optional when its role is limited to predicting postoperative outcome or it is used for purely research purposes. (2) INM should always be performed when any of the following are involved: supratentorial lesions in the central region and language-related cortex; brain stem tumors; intramedullary spinal cord tumors; conus-cauda equina tumors; rhizotomy for relief of spasticity; spina bifida with tethered cord. (3) Monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) is now a feasible and reliable technique that can be used under general anesthesia. MEP monitoring is the most appropriate technique to assess the functional integrity of descending motor pathways in the brain, the brain stem and, especially, the spinal cord. (4) Somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring is of value in assessment of the functional integrity of sensory pathways leading from the peripheral nerve, through the dorsal column and to the sensory cortex. SEPs cannot provide reliable information on the functional integrity of the motor system (for which MEPs should be used). (5) Monitoring of brain stem auditory evoked potentials remains a standard technique during surgery in the brain stem, the cerebellopontine angle, and the posterior fossa. (6) Mapping techniques (such as the phase reversal and the direct cortical/subcortical stimulation techniques) are invaluable and strongly recommended for brain surgery in eloquent cortex or along subcortical motor pathways. (7) Mapping of the motor nuclei of the VIIth, IXth-Xth and XIIth cranial nerves on the floor of the fourth ventricle is of great value in identification of "safe entry zones" into the brain stem. Techniques for mapping cranial nerves in the cerebellopontine angle and cauda equina have also been standardized. Other techniques, although safe and feasible, still lack a strong validation in terms of prognostic value and correlation with the postoperative neurological outcome. These techniques include monitoring of the bulbocavernosus reflex, monitoring of the corticobulbar tracts, and mapping of the dorsal columns. These techniques, however, are expected to open up new perspectives in the near future.