Literature DB >> 2352006

The prognostic value of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring and tumor data in supratentorial tumor removal.

A Witzmann1, H Beran, H Böhm-Jurkovic, W Löffler.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to find appropriate somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and tumor data that would predict immediate postoperative outcome. Seventeen patients were evaluated, all with supratentorial mass lesions. Intraoperative SSEP monitoring was carried out, and central conduction time, N20 amplitude, and N20 to N13 amplitude ratio were recorded throughout the operation. The differences between the end and the start of the procedure and between the end of the operation and the most substantial changes during tumor removal were calculated for statistical evaluation. Tumor location and extent were carefully determined and calculated by computed tomographic reconstructions in the axial and sagittal planes. Several tumor parameters were measured: the distances from the midpoint of the tumor to the central sulcus, midline, and base of the skull and the longitudinal and cross-sectional diameters. The electrophysiologic and tumor data sets were correlated with the immediate postoperative neurologic deterioration. For this purpose, patients were divided into two groups: group 1 = no neurologic deterioration after operation (13 patients); group 2 = neurologic deterioration after operation (4 patients). The difference in central conduction times between the end and the start of the procedure was the only variable that exhibited a significant influence on the immediate postoperative condition (P = 0.007), as determined by analysis of variance. The other electrophysiologic data as well as the tumor data failed the significance threshold of P = 0.05. Discriminant analysis was applied to test the classification capacity of the measured variables. Involving all measured variables (electrophysiologic and tumor data), discriminant analysis allowed a correct classification of all 17 patients to their proper neurologic deterioration group. Discriminant analysis for SSEP data alone led to 15 correct classifications. Tumor data, used alone for discriminating procedures, revealed 14 correct classifications. When each variable was analyzed separately, only the difference in central conduction times between the end and the start of the procedure gave significant predictions, namely, 15 correct classifications. This was the same number as achieved by all electrophysiologic variables together. No other variable could on its own yield any valid prognosis for assessment of immediate postoperative neurologic deterioration. The data confirm the importance of central conduction time recovery before the end of the operation on the patient's immediate postoperative neurologic condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2352006     DOI: 10.1007/bf02828281

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit        ISSN: 0748-1977


  32 in total

Review 1.  Monitoring of sensory evoked potentials is highly reliable and helpful in the operating room.

Authors:  W A Friedman; B L Grundy
Journal:  J Clin Monit       Date:  1987-01

2.  Excision of intramedullary arteriovenous malformation using intraoperative spinal cord monitoring.

Authors:  M P Owen; R H Brown; R F Spetzler; C L Nash; J S Brodkey; F E Nulsen
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1979-10

3.  The significance of somatosensory evoked potentials for localization of unilateral lesions within the cerebral hemispheres.

Authors:  M Stöhr; J Dichgans; K Voigt; U W Buettner
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 3.181

4.  Evoked potentials recorded from scalp and spinous processes during spinal column surgery.

Authors:  P J Maccabee; D B Levine; E I Pinkhasov; R Q Cracco; P Tsairis
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1983-12

5.  Non-cephalic reference recording of early somatosensory potentials to finger stimulation in adult or aging normal man: differentiation of widespread N18 and contralateral N20 from the prerolandic P22 and N30 components.

Authors:  J E Desmedt; G Cheron
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1981-12

6.  A comparative analysis of short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials in man, monkey, cat, and rat.

Authors:  T Allison; A L Hume
Journal:  Exp Neurol       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 5.330

Review 7.  Monitoring of sensory evoked potentials during neurosurgical operations: methods and applications.

Authors:  B L Grundy
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 4.654

8.  Monitoring of sensory evoked potentials during surgery of skull base tumours.

Authors:  F Gentili; W M Lougheed; K Yamashiro; C Corrado
Journal:  Can J Neurol Sci       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 2.104

9.  Postoperative neurological deficits may occur despite unchanged intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials.

Authors:  R P Lesser; P Raudzens; H Lüders; M R Nuwer; W D Goldie; H H Morris; D S Dinner; G Klem; J F Hahn; A G Shetter
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 10.422

10.  Brain stem and somatosensory evoked potentials: application in the operating room and intensive care unit.

Authors:  J R Hargadine; E Snyder
Journal:  Bull Los Angeles Neurol Soc       Date:  1982
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Surgical treatment of metastatic brain tumors.

Authors:  R Sawaya; B L Ligon; A K Bindal; R K Bindal; K R Hess
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.130

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.