Literature DB >> 21207240

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

Russ Lyon1, Anthony Gibson, Shane Burch, Jeremy Lieberman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials (TcMEPs) are sometimes used during lumbar spine surgery in order to detect and prevent an intraoperative nerve root injury. Typically, a fixed stimulus is applied, and one monitors for changes in response amplitude from several myotomes. Increased stimulating voltage may or may not alter the response after an acute injury.
METHODS: We suture ligated the dominant root innervating the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle in 7 experiments in swine monitored with TcMEPs. Injury to the root was confirmed by an increase in threshold current needed to evoke an EMG response in the TA (from 0.32 ± 0.10 to 2.3 ± 0.9 mA, P < 0.01). We recorded TcMEPs at baseline, after injury, and with incremental 25 V increases in stimulation up to 100 V.
RESULTS: After ligation, mean TcMEP amplitude in the TA decreased by 56% from baseline (P < 0.01). Adding voltage progressively restored mean amplitude to within 17% of baseline, but with wide variability in the response. In 1 experiment, there was no augmentation; 3 studies showed partial improvement toward baseline; and in 3 studies, the amplitude was augmented to levels above baseline.
CONCLUSION: An acute nerve root injury may be detected by TcMEP monitoring. However, if the stimulating voltage is increased after injury, the response may or may not be affected. In complex spine procedures, adjustments to TcMEP stimulating parameters are often needed to maintain reproducible responses. However, if these changes are made during a period where injury might occur, this could mask the changes and lead to a false-negative interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21207240     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-010-9269-6

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


  21 in total

1.  Value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in detecting acute nerve root injury: an experimental study with special emphasis on stimulus intensity.

Authors:  Tse-Min Tsai; Ching-Lin Tsai; Thy-Sheng Lin; Chou-Ching K Lin; I-Ming Jou
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 2.  Multimodal intraoperative monitoring: an overview and proposal of methodology based on 1,017 cases.

Authors:  Martin Sutter; Andreas Eggspuehler; Alfred Muller; Jiri Dvorak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-26       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  "Threshold-level" multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: description of method and comparison to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring.

Authors:  B Calancie; W Harris; J G Broton; N Alexeeva; B A Green
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Intraoperative motor evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation during two anaesthetic regimens.

Authors:  L Pelosi; M Stevenson; G J Hobbs; A Jardine; J K Webb
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.708

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.  Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of "anesthetic fade".

Authors:  Russ Lyon; John Feiner; Jeremy A Lieberman
Journal:  J Neurosurg Anesthesiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.956

7.  Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function.

Authors:  Alfredo Quiñones-Hinojosa; Russ Lyon; Gabriel Zada; Kathleen R Lamborn; Nalin Gupta; Andrew T Parsa; Michael W McDermott; Philip R Weinstein
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Relative efficacy of transcranial motor evoked potentials, mechanically-elicited electromyography, and evoked EMG to assess nerve root function during sustained retraction in a porcine model.

Authors:  Russ Lyon; Jeremy A Lieberman; John Feiner; Shane Burch
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  David H Kim; Jason Zaremski; Brian Kwon; Louis Jenis; Eric Woodard; Robert Bode; Robert J Banco
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  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

View more
  2 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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.