Literature DB >> 18292442

The effects of the neuromuscular blockade levels on amplitudes of posttetanic motor-evoked potentials and movement in response to transcranial stimulation in patients receiving propofol and fentanyl anesthesia.

Yuri Yamamoto1, Masahiko Kawaguchi, Hironobu Hayashi, Toshinori Horiuchi, Satoki Inoue, Hiroyuki Nakase, Toshisuke Sakaki, Hitoshi Furuya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient movement in response to transcranial stimulation during monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) may interfere with surgery. We recently reported a new technique to augment the amplitudes of myogenic MEPs, called "post-tetanic MEPs (p-MEPs)," in which tetanic stimulation of a peripheral nerve was applied prior to transcranial stimulation. We conducted the present study to determine an appropriate level of neuromuscular blockade during the monitoring of p-MEPs with a focus on patient movement.
METHODS: In 15 patients under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia, conventional MEPs (c-MEPs) and p-MEPs in response to transcranial electrical stimulation were recorded from the abductor hallucis muscle. For p-MEP recording, tetanic stimulation to the posterior tibial nerve at an intensity of 50 mA for 5 s was started 6 s prior to transcranial stimulation. The level of neuromuscular blockade was assessed by recording the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials (T1) from the abductor hallucis brevis muscle in response to supramaximal electrical stimulation of the median nerve at the wrist. After the baseline recordings of c-MEP and p-MEP at a T1 of 50% of control, 0.1 mg/kg of vecuronium was injected and the amplitudes of c-MEPs and p-MEPs were recorded. Patient movement was also assessed with the movement score ranging from 1 to 4 (1 = no movement, 4 = severe movement).
RESULTS: T1, %T1, the amplitudes of c-MEPs and p-MEPs, and the movement score changed in parallel after the administration of vecuronium. The amplitudes of p-MEPs before and 15-45 min after the administration of vecuronium were significantly higher than those of c-MEPs. When T1 and %T1 were less than and equal to 1 mV and 10%, respectively, the movement score was 1 or 2 in all patients, indicating that microscopic surgery was possible without the interruption of surgical procedures. When T1 was around 1 mV (0.8-1.2 mV), the success rates of recording of c-MEPs and p-MEPs were 73% (11 of 15) and 100% (15 of 15), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia, p-MEP could be recorded at a T1 of 1 mV, in which patient movement in response to transcranial stimulation did not interfere with surgery. This technique may be used in patients without preoperative motor deficits, in which patient movement during surgical procedures is not preferable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18292442     DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181617508

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


  8 in total

Review 1.  Recent advances in the monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials: development of post-tetanic motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hironobu Hayashi; Yuri Yamamoto; Hitoshi Furuya
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2008-11-15       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 2.  Muscle relaxant use during intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring.

Authors:  Tod B Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2012-09-27       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Different effects of tetanic stimulation of facial nerve and ulnar nerve on transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  Shen Sun; Fu-Bo Tian; Shao-Qang Huang; Jun Zhang; Wei-Min Liang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-03-15

4.  Changes of motor evoked potentials during descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest.

Authors:  Masahide Shinzawa; Kenji Yoshitani; Kenji Minatoya; Tomoya Irie; Hitoshi Ogino; Yoshihiko Ohnishi
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 5.  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

6.  Bite injuries caused by transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials' monitoring: incidence, associated factors, and clinical course.

Authors:  Sachiko Yata; Mitsuru Ida; Hiroko Shimotsuji; Yosuke Nakagawa; Nobuhiro Ueda; Tsunenori Takatani; Hideki Shigematsu; Yasushi Motoyama; Hiroyuki Nakase; Tadaaki Kirita; Masahiko Kawaguchi
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 2.078

7.  Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve augments motor evoked potentials by re-exciting spinal anterior horn cells.

Authors:  Yusuke Yamamoto; Hideki Shigematsu; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hironobu Hayashi; Tsunenori Takatani; Masato Tanaka; Akinori Okuda; Sachiko Kawasaki; Keisuke Masuda; Yuma Suga; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 2.502

8.  Comparison of false-negative/positive results of intraoperative evoked potential monitoring between no and partial neuromuscular blockade in patients receiving propofol/remifentanil-based anesthesia during cerebral aneurysm clipping surgery: A retrospective analysis of 685 patients.

Authors:  Sung-Hoon Kim; Seok-Joon Jin; Myong-Hwan Karm; Young-Jin Moon; Hye-Won Jeong; Jae-Won Kim; Seung-Il Ha; Joung-Uk Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.889

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.