Literature DB >> 18083499

Criteria for transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring during spinal deformity surgery A review and discussion of the literature.

D-D Langeloo1, H-L Journée, M de Kleuver, J A Grotenhuis.   

Abstract

Transcranial electrical stimulated motor evoked potential monitoring (TES-MEP) has proven to be a successful and reliable neuromonitoring technique during spinal correction surgery. However, three criteria for TES-MEP monitoring have been described in the literature. This study aims at discussing and comparing the following criteria: (1) the "threshold level criterion" introduced by Calancie et al. (J Neurosurg 88 (1998) 457-70): a more than 100V over more than 1h increase of threshold level to get useful TES-MEP responses indicated neurological impairment; (2) the "amplitude criterion": for TES-MEP monitoring in corrective surgery of the spine, a more than 80% decrease of one or more response amplitudes was considered a valuable criterion for impending neurological deficits by Langeloo et al. (Spine 28 (2003) 1043-50); (3) "the morphology criterion": introduced in 2005 by Quinones et al. (Neurosurgery 56 (2005) 982-93), it is based on the morphology of the MEP-compound muscle action potentials (CMAP). The criterion was applied during TES-MEP monitoring during intramedullary spinal cord tumour resection. Neurological events are defined by a sharp decrease of response duration and/or waveform complexity and an increase in voltage threshold of 100V or greater. Although all methods have been reported to be successful during spinal surgery, the threshold criterion and the morphology change criterion carry several drawbacks. We consider the amplitude reduction method to be most useful during corrective spinal surgery. The sequences of observations and decisions during a TES-MEP monitoring that is based on this criterion are schematized in a flowchart.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18083499     DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2007.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin        ISSN: 0987-7053            Impact factor:   3.734


  16 in total

1.  Intraoperative spinal cord and nerve root monitoring: a survey of Canadian spine surgeons.

Authors:  Lissa Peeling; Stephen Hentschel; Richard Fox; Hamilton Hall; Daryl R Fourney
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.089

2.  Trending algorithm discriminates hemodynamic from injury related TcMEP amplitude loss.

Authors:  Paul Jasiukaitis; Russ Lyon
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Usefulness of multi-channels in intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: multi-center study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research.

Authors:  Zenya Ito; Yukihiro Matsuyama; Kenichi Shinomiya; Muneharu Ando; Shigenori Kawabata; Tsukasa Kanchiku; Takanori Saito; Masato Takahashi; Shinichiro Taniguchi; Naoya Yamamoto; Kei Yamada; Kazunobu Kida; Yasushi Fujiwara; Sho Kobayashi; Kazuhiko Satomi; Toshikazu Tani
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  A practical guide for anesthetic management during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring.

Authors:  Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hiroki Iida; Satoshi Tanaka; Naokazu Fukuoka; Hironobu Hayashi; Shunsuke Izumi; Kenji Yoshitani; Manabu Kakinohana
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2019-10-19       Impact factor: 2.078

5.  A novel model incorporating two variability sources for describing motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  Change in body surface temperature as an ancillary measurement to motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  J H Yang; S W Suh; Y-S Park; J-H Lee; B K Park; C H Ham; J W Choi
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 2.772

7.  Intraoperative changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials predicting outcome in children with intramedullary spinal cord tumors.

Authors:  Jason S Cheng; Michael E Ivan; Christopher J Stapleton; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa; Nalin Gupta; Kurtis I Auguste
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring outcome in the high-risk brain and spine surgeries: Correlation of clinical and neurophysiological data - An Indian perspective.

Authors:  Poornima Amit Shah
Journal:  Ann Indian Acad Neurol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.383

9.  A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery.

Authors:  Mark M Stecker
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-07-17

10.  What Is the Best Multimodality Combination for Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring of Motor Function? A Multicenter Study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research.

Authors:  Zenya Ito; Yukihiro Matsuyama; Muneharu Ando; Shigenori Kawabata; Tsukasa Kanchiku; Kazunobu Kida; Yasushi Fujiwara; Kei Yamada; Naoya Yamamoto; Sho Kobayashi; Takanori Saito; Kanichiro Wada; Kazuhiko Satomi; Kenichi Shinomiya; Toshikazu Tani
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2015-07-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.