Laura B Hemmer1, Carine Zeeni2, John F Bebawy1, Bernard R Bendok3, Mathew A Cotton4, Neil B Shah5, Dhanesh K Gupta6, Antoun Koht7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; American University of Beirut, Riad El Solh, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Neurological Testing Center, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 5. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Midwestern University, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Electronic address: dhanesh-gupta@northwestern.edu. 7. Department of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the experience at a single institution with motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during intracranial aneurysm surgery to determine the incidence of unacceptable movement. METHODS: Neurophysiology event logs and anesthetic records from 220 craniotomies for aneurysm clipping were reviewed for unacceptable patient movement or reason for cessation of MEPs. Muscle relaxants were not given after intubation. Transcranial MEPs were recorded from bilateral abductor hallucis and abductor pollicis muscles. MEP stimulus intensity was increased up to 500 V until evoked potential responses were detectable. RESULTS: Out of 220 patients, 7 (3.2%) exhibited unacceptable movement with MEP stimulation-2 had nociception-induced movement and 5 had excessive field movement. In all but one case, MEP monitoring could be resumed, yielding a 99.5% monitoring rate. CONCLUSIONS: With the anesthetic and monitoring regimen, the authors were able to record MEPs of the upper and lower extremities in all patients and found only 3.2% demonstrated unacceptable movement. With a suitable anesthetic technique, MEP monitoring in the upper and lower extremities appears to be feasible in most patients and should not be withheld because of concern for movement during neurovascular surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To review the experience at a single institution with motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during intracranial aneurysm surgery to determine the incidence of unacceptable movement. METHODS: Neurophysiology event logs and anesthetic records from 220 craniotomies for aneurysm clipping were reviewed for unacceptable patient movement or reason for cessation of MEPs. Muscle relaxants were not given after intubation. Transcranial MEPs were recorded from bilateral abductor hallucis and abductor pollicis muscles. MEP stimulus intensity was increased up to 500 V until evoked potential responses were detectable. RESULTS: Out of 220 patients, 7 (3.2%) exhibited unacceptable movement with MEP stimulation-2 had nociception-induced movement and 5 had excessive field movement. In all but one case, MEP monitoring could be resumed, yielding a 99.5% monitoring rate. CONCLUSIONS: With the anesthetic and monitoring regimen, the authors were able to record MEPs of the upper and lower extremities in all patients and found only 3.2% demonstrated unacceptable movement. With a suitable anesthetic technique, MEP monitoring in the upper and lower extremities appears to be feasible in most patients and should not be withheld because of concern for movement during neurovascular surgery.
Authors: Minyu Jian; Bo Ma; Haiyang Liu; Chengwei Wang; Fa Liang; Yang Zhou; Hui Qiao; Ruquan Han Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Daniel Felbaum; David Y Zhao; Vikram V Nayar; Christopher G Kalhorn; Kevin M McGrail; Allen S Mandir; Robert E Minahan Journal: Cureus Date: 2016-02-14