Literature DB >> 15673873

The modifying effects of stimulation pattern and propofol plasma concentration on motor-evoked potentials.

Kai M Scheufler1, Peter C Reinacher, Winfried Blumrich, Josef Zentner, Hans-Joachim Priebe.   

Abstract

The quality of intraoperative motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) largely depends on the stimulation pattern and anesthetic technique. Further improvement in intraoperative MEP recording requires exact knowledge of the modifying effects of each of these factors. Accordingly, we designed this study to characterize the modifying effect of different stimulation patterns during different propofol target plasma concentrations (PTPCs) on intraoperatively recorded transcranial electrical MEPs. In 12 patients undergoing craniotomy, stimulation patterns (300-500 V; 100-1000 Hz; 1-5 stimuli) were varied randomly at different PTPCs (2, 4, and 6 microg/mL). Remifentanil was administered unchanged at 0.2 microg . kg(-1) . min(-1). MEPs were recorded from the thenar and hypothenar muscles. Analysis of MEPs was blinded to the PTPC. Three-way analysis of variance revealed significant main effects of increasing stimulation intensity, frequency, and number of stimuli on MEP amplitude (P < 0.05). Maximum MEP amplitudes and recording success rates were observed with three or more stimuli delivered at 1000 Hz and > or =150 V. A significant main effect of PTPC (2 vs 4 and 6 microg/mL) on MEP amplitude was observed at the thenar recording site only (P < 0.05). An amplitude ratio calculated from corresponding MEPs evoked by double and quadruple stimulation proved to be insensitive to changes in PTPC. In conclusion, MEP characteristics varied significantly in response to changes in stimulation pattern and less to changes in PTPC.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15673873     DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000141678.04200.86

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  6 in total

Review 1.  Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update.

Authors:  David B Macdonald
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2006-07-11       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Improving successful rate of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials monitoring during spinal surgery in young children.

Authors:  Junlin Yang; Zifang Huang; Haihua Shu; Yuguang Chen; Xinrui Sun; Weifeng Liu; Yunling Dou; Chaofan Xie; Xiang Lin; Yong Hu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Anesthetic management of patients with intracranial aneurysms.

Authors:  Alaa A Abd-Elsayed; Anthony S Wehby; Ehab Farag
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2014

4.  Effects of Dexmedetomidine on motor- and somatosensory-evoked potentials in patients with thoracic spinal cord tumor: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yan Li; Lingzhong Meng; Yuming Peng; Hui Qiao; Lanjun Guo; Ruquan Han; Adrian W Gelb
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Comparison of Propofol and Ketofol on Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Patients Undergoing Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Ankur Khandelwal; Arvind Chaturvedi; Navdeep Sokhal; Akanksha Singh; Hanjabam Barun Sharma
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2021-05-20

6.  An evaluation of anesthetic fade in motor evoked potential monitoring in spinal deformity surgeries.

Authors:  Ryo Ugawa; Tomoyuki Takigawa; Hiroko Shimomiya; Takuma Ohnishi; Yuri Kurokawa; Yoshiaki Oda; Yasuyuki Shiozaki; Haruo Misawa; Masato Tanaka; Toshifumi Ozaki
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.