Literature DB >> 19862632

Mixed-muscle electrode placement ("jumping" muscles) may produce false-negative results when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury in a porcine model.

Russ Lyon1, Shane Burch, Jeremy Lieberman.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Placing EMG electrode pairs that span several muscles is sometimes used to enhance the efficacy of electromyographic recordings. This technique, often referred to as "jumping," has not been studied when using Motor Evoked Potentials (TcMEP) for detecting isolated spinal nerve root injury during spine surgery.
METHODS: TcMEPs were obtained in seven pigs under general anesthesia. One pair of recording electrodes was placed entirely within the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle; a second pair had one lead in the TA and the other in the gastrocnemius muscle (TA-GAS). The dominant root innervating the TA was determined using evoked EMG. MEP amplitudes recorded by the TA and TA-GAS electrodes were compared before and after suture ligation of this root in 12 separate experiments.
RESULTS: Mean baseline TcMEP amplitude was not significantly different for the TA vs. TA-GAS. After root ligation, mean amplitude dropped from baseline by 72 +/- 13% in the TA vs. 50 +/- 29% in the TA-GAS (p < 0.01). All amplitudes decreased by >50% in the TA group; half of the TA-GAS group had <50% decrease in amplitude. DISCUSSION: Mixed-myotomal recording electrodes did not consistently increase baseline TcMEP amplitude. The decrease in amplitude after ligation was both smaller and more variable in the "jumped" TA-GAS electrodes. Thus, this technique may allow someone relying on TcMEP monitoring to miss an otherwise detectable isolated nerve root injury (i.e., have a false-negative result).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19862632     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-009-9205-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  22 in total

1.  Influence of different types of surface electrodes on amplitude, area and duration of the compound muscle action potential.

Authors:  D Jonas; C Bischoff; B Conrad
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Optimal placement of recording electrodes for quantifying facial nerve compound muscle action potential.

Authors:  LanJun Guo; Paul Jasiukaitis; Lawrence H Pitts; Steven W Cheung
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Comparison of surface EMG signals between electrode types, interelectrode distances and electrode orientations in isometric exercise of the erector spinae muscle.

Authors:  M Zedka; S Kumar; Y Narayan
Journal:  Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-10

4.  Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring.

Authors:  A R Møller
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1995-01

5.  Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy.

Authors:  Dapeng Fan; Daniel M Schwartz; Alexander R Vaccaro; Alan S Hilibrand; Todd J Albert
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Continuous electromyography monitoring of motor cranial nerves during cerebellopontine angle surgery.

Authors:  J Romstöck; C Strauss; R Fahlbusch
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.115

7.  Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia.

Authors:  U Pechstein; C Cedzich; J Nadstawek; J Schramm
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during 409 lumbosacral surgical procedures in 409 patients.

Authors:  Martin A Sutter; Andreas Eggspuehler; Dieter Grob; Francois Porchet; Dezsö Jeszenszky; Jiri Dvorak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Monitoring of nerve root injury using transcranial motor-evoked potentials in a pig model.

Authors:  James M Mok; Russ Lyon; Jeremy A Lieberman; Jordan M Cloyd; Shane Burch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Variability of motor-evoked potentials recorded during nitrous oxide anesthesia from the tibialis anterior muscle after transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  I J Woodforth; R G Hicks; M R Crawford; J P Stephen; D J Burke
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.108

View more
  3 in total

1.  Re: Trans-cranial motor evoked potential detection of femoral nerve injury in trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Justin W Silverstein
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during hemorrhage are associated with increased serum propofol concentrations.

Authors:  Jeremy A Lieberman; John Feiner; Mark Rollins; Russ Lyon; Paul Jasiukaitis
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Somatosensory and transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring in a porcine model for experimental procedures.

Authors:  Sven Maier; Ulrich Goebel; Sonja Krause; Christoph Benk; Martin A Schick; Hartmut Buerkle; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Fabian A Kari; Jakob Wollborn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.