PURPOSE: Recent evidence has indicated that post-tetanic motor evoked potentials (p-MEPs) can be used to improve the reliability of the monitoring of motor function during spinal surgery. However, data on p-MEP monitoring are limited to those in subjects under propofol anesthesia. The present study was conducted to assess the applicability of sevoflurane during p-MEP monitoring in patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: Thirty-five patients undergoing spinal surgery under sevoflurane anesthesia were enrolled in the study and classified as being without preoperative motor deficits (n = 25) or with preoperative motor deficits (n = 10). For conventional MEP (c-MEP), transcranial train-pulse stimulation was delivered and the compound muscle action potentials were bilaterally recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, abductor hallucis, tibialis anterior, and soleus muscles. For p-MEP, tetanic stimulation (50 Hz, 50 mA stimulus intensity) for 5 s was applied to the bilateral median and left tibial nerves 1 s prior to transcranial stimulation. RESULTS: The amplitudes of p-MEP were significantly higher in all muscle recording sites than those of c-MEP in patients without motor deficits, whereas these amplitudes were significantly higher in only four of the eight muscles in patients with motor deficits (P < 0.05). The success rates of c-MEP and p-MEP recording were 48% and 64%, respectively, in patients without motor deficits and 30% and 60%, respectively, in patients with motor deficits. There were no statistically significant differences in success rates between c-MEP and p-MEP recording. CONCLUSION: Although the application of tetanic stimulation prior to transcranial stimulation did not significantly increase the success rates of MEP recording, it significantly enlarged MEP amplitude under sevoflurane anesthesia in patients without preoperative motor deficits.
PURPOSE: Recent evidence has indicated that post-tetanic motor evoked potentials (p-MEPs) can be used to improve the reliability of the monitoring of motor function during spinal surgery. However, data on p-MEP monitoring are limited to those in subjects under propofol anesthesia. The present study was conducted to assess the applicability of sevoflurane during p-MEP monitoring in patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: Thirty-five patients undergoing spinal surgery under sevoflurane anesthesia were enrolled in the study and classified as being without preoperative motor deficits (n = 25) or with preoperative motor deficits (n = 10). For conventional MEP (c-MEP), transcranial train-pulse stimulation was delivered and the compound muscle action potentials were bilaterally recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis, abductor hallucis, tibialis anterior, and soleus muscles. For p-MEP, tetanic stimulation (50 Hz, 50 mA stimulus intensity) for 5 s was applied to the bilateral median and left tibial nerves 1 s prior to transcranial stimulation. RESULTS: The amplitudes of p-MEP were significantly higher in all muscle recording sites than those of c-MEP in patients without motor deficits, whereas these amplitudes were significantly higher in only four of the eight muscles in patients with motor deficits (P < 0.05). The success rates of c-MEP and p-MEP recording were 48% and 64%, respectively, in patients without motor deficits and 30% and 60%, respectively, in patients with motor deficits. There were no statistically significant differences in success rates between c-MEP and p-MEP recording. CONCLUSION: Although the application of tetanic stimulation prior to transcranial stimulation did not significantly increase the success rates of MEP recording, it significantly enlarged MEP amplitude under sevoflurane anesthesia in patients without preoperative motor deficits.
Authors: M Kawaguchi; T Sakamoto; S Inoue; M Kakimoto; H Furuya; T Morimoto; T Sakaki Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 3.468