Literature DB >> 21217447

Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring during spine surgery: is it safe?

Daniel M Schwartz1, Anthony K Sestokas, John P Dormans, Alexander R Vaccaro, Alan S Hilibrand, John M Flynn, P Mark Li, Suken A Shah, William Welch, Denis S Drummond, Todd J Albert.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
OBJECTIVE: To report on the safety of repetitive transcranial electric stimulation (RTES) for eliciting motor-evoked potentials during spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Theoretical concerns over the safety of RTES have hindered broader acceptance of transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials (tceMEP), despite successful implementation of spinal cord monitoring with tceMEPs in many large spine centers, as well as their apparent superiority over mixed-nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) for detection of spinal cord injury.
METHODS: The records of 18,862 consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria and underwent spine surgery with tceMEP monitoring were reviewed for RTES-related complications.
RESULTS: This large retrospective review identified only 26 (0.14%) cases with RTES-related complications; all but one of these were tongue lacerations, most of which were self-limiting.
CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that RTES is a highly safe modality for monitoring spinal cord motor tract function intraoperatively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21217447     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181ecbe77

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  13 in total

1.  Report of seizure following intraoperative monitoring of transcranial motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  Scott F Davis; Thomas Altstadt; Rick Flores; Alan Kaye; Glenn Oremus
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2013

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.  Safe transcranial electric stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring during posterior spinal fusion in two patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Joseph L Yellin; Cheryl R Wiggins; Alier J Franco; Wudbhav N Sankar
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  A multi-train electrical stimulation protocol facilitates transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials and increases induction rate and reproducibility even in patients with preoperative neurological deficits.

Authors:  Shuta Ushio; Shigenori Kawabata; Satoshi Sumiya; Tsuyoshi Kato; Toshitaka Yoshii; Tsuyoshi Yamada; Mitsuhiro Enomoto; Atsushi Okawa
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 2.502

5.  Utility of intraoperative monitoring with motor-evoked potential during the surgical enucleation of peripheral nerve schwannoma.

Authors:  Hiromi Sasaki; Satoshi Nagano; Masahiro Yokouchi; Takao Setoguchi; Hirofumi Shimada; Takuya Yamamoto; Yasuhiro Ishidou; Setsuro Komiya
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  A novel mouthpiece prevents bite injuries caused by intraoperative transcranial electric motor-evoked potential monitoring.

Authors:  Kyoko Oshita; Noboru Saeki; Takayasu Kubo; Hitoshi Abekura; Nobuhiro Tanaka; Masashi Kawamoto
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 7.  A brief overview of 100 years of history of surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Carol C Hasler
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 1.548

8.  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

9.  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

10.  A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery.

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.