OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute and relative refractory period (RRP) of fast conducting axons of the corticospinal tract in response to paired high intensity (HI or supramaximal) and moderate intensity (MI or submaximal) electrical stimuli. The importance of the refractory period of fast conducting corticospinal tract axons has to be considered if repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) is to be effective for eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) intraoperatively. METHODS: Direct (D) waves were recorded from the epidural space of the spinal cord in 14 patients, undergoing surgical correction of spinal deformities. To assess the absolute and RRPs of the corticospinal tract, paired transcranial electrical stimuli at interstimulus intervals (ISI) from 0.7 to 4.1 ms were applied. Recovery of conditioned D wave at short (2 ms) and long (4 ms) ISI was correlated with muscle MEP threshold. The refractory period for peripheral nerve was tested in comparison to that for the corticospinal tract. In four healthy subjects sensory nerve action potentials of the median nerve were studied after stimulation with paired stimuli. RESULTS: HI TES revealed a mean duration of 0.82 ms for the absolute refractory period of the corticospinal tract, while MI stimulation resulted in a mean refractory period duration of 1.47 ms. Stimuli of HI produced faster recovery of D wave amplitude during the RRP. Furthermore, short trains of transcranial electrical stimuli did not elicit MEPs when D wave showed incomplete recovery. A similar influence of stimulus intensity on recovery time was found for the refractory period of peripheral nerve. CONCLUSIONS: The recovery of D wave amplitude is dependent upon stimulus intensity. High intensity produces fast recovery. This is an important factor for the generation of MEPs. When HI TES is used to elicit MEPs, short and long ISIs are equally effective. When MI TES is used to elicit MEPs, only a long ISI of 4 ms is effective.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute and relative refractory period (RRP) of fast conducting axons of the corticospinal tract in response to paired high intensity (HI or supramaximal) and moderate intensity (MI or submaximal) electrical stimuli. The importance of the refractory period of fast conducting corticospinal tract axons has to be considered if repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) is to be effective for eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) intraoperatively. METHODS: Direct (D) waves were recorded from the epidural space of the spinal cord in 14 patients, undergoing surgical correction of spinal deformities. To assess the absolute and RRPs of the corticospinal tract, paired transcranial electrical stimuli at interstimulus intervals (ISI) from 0.7 to 4.1 ms were applied. Recovery of conditioned D wave at short (2 ms) and long (4 ms) ISI was correlated with muscle MEP threshold. The refractory period for peripheral nerve was tested in comparison to that for the corticospinal tract. In four healthy subjects sensory nerve action potentials of the median nerve were studied after stimulation with paired stimuli. RESULTS: HI TES revealed a mean duration of 0.82 ms for the absolute refractory period of the corticospinal tract, while MI stimulation resulted in a mean refractory period duration of 1.47 ms. Stimuli of HI produced faster recovery of D wave amplitude during the RRP. Furthermore, short trains of transcranial electrical stimuli did not elicit MEPs when D wave showed incomplete recovery. A similar influence of stimulus intensity on recovery time was found for the refractory period of peripheral nerve. CONCLUSIONS: The recovery of D wave amplitude is dependent upon stimulus intensity. High intensity produces fast recovery. This is an important factor for the generation of MEPs. When HI TES is used to elicit MEPs, short and long ISIs are equally effective. When MI TES is used to elicit MEPs, only a long ISI of 4 ms is effective.
Authors: Zachary T Irwin; Mohammad Z Awad; Christopher L Gonzalez; Arie Nakhmani; J Nicole Bentley; Thomas A Moore; Kenneth G Smithson; Barton L Guthrie; Harrison C Walker Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 3.708