Literature DB >> 16492846

The effects of stimulation pattern and sevoflurane concentration on intraoperative motor-evoked potentials.

Peter C Reinacher1, Hans-Joachim Priebe, Winfried Blumrich, Josef Zentner, Kai M Scheufler.   

Abstract

The usefulness of intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) during inhaled anesthesia is limited by the suppressive effects of volatile anesthetics on MEP signals. We investigated the effects of different stimulation patterns and end-tidal concentrations of sevoflurane on intraoperative transcranial electrical MEPs. In 12 patients undergoing craniotomy, stimulation patterns (300-500 V, 100-1000 Hz, 1-5 stimuli) and multiples (0.5, 0.75, and 1.0) of minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of sevoflurane were varied randomly while remifentanil was administered at a constant rate of 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1). MEPs were recorded from thenar and hypothenar muscles and analyzed without knowledge of the respective MAC. Three-way analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for increasing stimulation intensity, frequency, and number of stimuli on MEP amplitude (P < 0.05). Maximum MEP amplitudes and recording success rates were observed during 4 stimuli delivered at 1000 Hz and 300 V. A significant main effect of sevoflurane concentration (0.5 versus 0.75 and 1 MAC multiple) on MEP amplitude was observed at the thenar recording site only (P < 0.05). In conclusion, MEP characteristics varied significantly with changes in stimulation pattern and less so with changes in sevoflurane concentration. The results suggest that high frequency repetitive stimulation allows intraoperative use of MEP monitoring during up to 1 MAC multiple of sevoflurane and constant infusion of remifentanil up to 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16492846     DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000195235.02162.5d

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


  6 in total

1.  Evaluation of the applicability of sevoflurane during post-tetanic myogenic motor evoked potential monitoring in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Authors:  Hironobu Hayashi; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Ryuichi Abe; Yuri Yamamoto; Satoki Inoue; Munehisa Koizumi; Yoshinori Takakura; Hitoshi Furuya
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2009-05-15       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 2.  Anesthetic management of patients with intracranial aneurysms.

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

Review 3.  Is a new paradigm needed to explain how inhaled anesthetics produce immobility?

Authors:  Edmond I Eger; Douglas E Raines; Steven L Shafer; Hugh C Hemmings; James M Sonner
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 4.  The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rocco Cavaleri; Siobhan M Schabrun; Lucy S Chipchase
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-06

5.  Sevoflurane versus PRopofol combined with Remifentanil anesthesia Impact on postoperative Neurologic function in supratentorial Gliomas (SPRING): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yan Xing; Nan Lin; Ruquan Han; John F Bebawy; Yuming Peng; Jiaxin Li; Xiaoyuan Liu; Yan Li; Jia Dong; Min Zeng; Manyu Zhang; Lanyi Nie
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  Determining the number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rocco Cavaleri; Siobhan M Schabrun; Lucy S Chipchase
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-08-11
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.