Literature DB >> 19234909

Significance of intraoperative motor function monitoring using transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (MEP) in patients with spinal and cranial lesions near the motor pathways.

Matthias Johannes Krammer1, Stefan Wolf, David Baruch Schul, Werner Gerstner, Christianto Bernardo Lumenta.   

Abstract

Intraoperative motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring in patients with spinal and cranial lesions is thought to be a valuable tool for prevention of postoperative motor deficits. Aim of this study was to investigate its diagnostic value in a spinal and a cranial patient group. Ninety-six patients, 31 with spinal and 65 with intracranial lesions, were studied. Transcranial stimulation was performed with a high-frequency electrical train stimulation using two subdermal needle electrodes. MEPs were recorded from the pathology-related muscles. Decreasing amplitudes of 50% or more, increasing stimulus intensities of 20% or more or increased latencies were taken as warning criteria. MEP recording was possible in 90% of the spinal and 98% of the cranial group. With two further exclusions, 28 patients of the spinal and 62 of the cranial group were analyzed. We saw a temporary maximum amplitude reduction of 50% or more and an increase in stimulation intensity of 20% or more in 8 spinal and 29 cranial patients. Five of the spinal and nine of the cranial patients deteriorated in motor function postoperatively. One patient with normal MEP monitoring showed a temporary motor weakness postoperatively. Latencies were normal in all patients. Given both warning criteria, intraoperative MEP changes had a sensitivity of 83%/ 100% and a specificity of 86%/ 62% (spinal/ cranial group). The positive predictive value of MEP changes for postoperative motor function deterioration was 63%/ 31%, and the negative predictive value was 95%/ 100%. Transcranial electrical monitoring of MEP is a practicable and safe method. However, there are many events, which can cause amplitude changes of MEP independent from surgical manipulations. Although sensitivity is high for both groups, this results in a moderate specificity for the cranial group and a low positive predictive value for both groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19234909     DOI: 10.1080/02688690802563349

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0268-8697            Impact factor:   1.596


  13 in total

1.  Increases in voltage may produce false-negatives when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury.

Authors:  Russ Lyon; Anthony Gibson; Shane Burch; Jeremy Lieberman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2011-01-05       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 2.  Modern management of rare brain metastases in adults.

Authors:  Matthias J Krammer; Andre Tomasino; David B Schul; Sabrina T Astner; Michael P Meier; Christianto B Lumenta
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-06-21       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Spinal hemangioblastomas: analysis of surgical outcome and prognostic factors.

Authors:  Alberto Feletti; Alessandro Boaro; Davide Giampiccolo; Giorgio Casoli; Fabio Moscolo; Massimiliano Ferrara; Francesco Sala; Giacomo Pavesi
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 4.  Assessing the Capabilities of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to Aid in the Removal of Brain Tumors Affecting the Motor Cortex: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lucas Jose Vaz Schiavao; Iuri Neville Ribeiro; Cintya Yukie Hayashi; Eberval Gadelha Figueiredo; Andre Russowsky Brunoni; Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira; Gabriel Pokorny; Wellingson Silva Paiva
Journal:  Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 2.989

5.  Intra-operative MEP monitoring can work well in the patients with neural axis abnormality.

Authors:  Shujie Wang; Qianyu Zhuang; Jianguo Zhang; Ye Tian; Hong Zhao; Yipeng Wang; Yu Zhao; Shugang Li; Xisheng Weng; Guixing Qiu; Jianxiong Shen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Intraoperative evoked potentials in patients with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament.

Authors:  Myungeun Yoo; Yoon Ghil Park; Yong Eun Cho; Chae Hwan Lim; Seok Young Chung; Dawoon Kim; Jinyoung Park
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-02-06       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Acute nerve stretch and the compound motor action potential.

Authors:  Mark M Stecker; Kelly Baylor; Jacob Wolfe; Matthew Stevenson
Journal:  J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj       Date:  2011-08-24

8.  Intraoperative neuromonitoring for function-guided resection differs for supratentorial motor eloquent gliomas and metastases.

Authors:  Thomas Obermueller; Michael Schaeffner; Ehab Shiban; Doris Droese; Chiara Negwer; Bernhard Meyer; Florian Ringel; Sandro M Krieg
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 2.474

9.  A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery.

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

Review 10.  Spinal involvement in mucopolysaccharidosis IVA (Morquio-Brailsford or Morquio A syndrome): presentation, diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Guirish A Solanki; Kenneth W Martin; Mary C Theroux; Christina Lampe; Klane K White; Renée Shediac; Christian G Lampe; Michael Beck; William G Mackenzie; Christian J Hendriksz; Paul R Harmatz
Journal:  J Inherit Metab Dis       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 4.982

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.