A Szelényi1, D Langer, J Beck, A Raabe, E S Flamm, V Seifert, V Deletis. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, ZNN, Klinikum der Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Haus 95, Am Schleusenweg 2-16, 60528 Frankfurt/Main, Germany. A.Szelenyi@em.uni-frankfurt.de
Abstract
STUDY AIM: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5+/-14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5ms, an interstimulus interval of 4ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200mA (TES) versus 25mA (DCS). RESULTS: In 95/108 (88%) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12%) patients, we observed nine (64%) temporary changes, four (29%) permanent deteriorations and one (7%) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64%) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93%) with DCS (Fishers'p=0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57%), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33% with TES-MMEPs (p=0.567, NS). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.
STUDY AIM: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5+/-14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5ms, an interstimulus interval of 4ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200mA (TES) versus 25mA (DCS). RESULTS: In 95/108 (88%) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12%) patients, we observed nine (64%) temporary changes, four (29%) permanent deteriorations and one (7%) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64%) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93%) with DCS (Fishers'p=0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57%), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33% with TES-MMEPs (p=0.567, NS). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.
Authors: Ferenc Rabai; Claire M Dorey; W Christopher Fox; Krista M Fitzgerald; Christoph N Seubert; Steven A Robicsek Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Pract Date: 2022-07-16
Authors: Emanuela Formaggio; Silvia F Storti; Vincenzo Tramontano; Agnese Casarin; Alessandra Bertoldo; Antonio Fiaschi; Andrea Talacchi; Francesco Sala; Gianna M Toffolo; Paolo Manganotti Journal: Front Neuroeng Date: 2013-02-25
Authors: Arthur Wagner; Sebastian Ille; Caspar Liesenhoff; Kaywan Aftahy; Bernhard Meyer; Sandro M Krieg Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.800