Literature DB >> 24233355

Intraoperative flash VEPs are reproducible in the presence of low amplitude EEG.

David A Houlden1, Chantal A Turgeon, Thomas Polis, John Sinclair, Stuart Coupland, Pierre Bourque, Martin Corsten, Amin Kassam.   

Abstract

Flash visual evoked potentials (FVEPs) are often irreproducible during surgery. We assessed the relationship between intraoperative FVEP reproducibility and EEG amplitude. Left then right eyes were stimulated by goggle light emitting diodes, and FVEPs were recorded from Oz–Fz′ (International 10-20 system) in 12 patients. Low cut filters were ≤5 Hz in all patients; two patients also had recordings using 10 and 30 Hz. The reproducibility of FVEP and the amplitude of the concomitant EEG from C4′–Fz were measured. Nine patients had low amplitude EEG (<30 μV); reproducible FVEPs were obtained from all eyes with normal pre-operative vision. The other three patients had high amplitude EEG (>50 μV); FVEPs were absent from three of four eyes with normal pre-operative vision (the other normal eye had a present but irreproducible FVEP). Raising the low cut filter to 10 and 30 Hz (in two patients) progressively reduced EEG and FVEP amplitude, reduced amplifier blocking time and improved FVEP reproducibility. FVEPs were more reproducible in the presence of low amplitude EEG than high amplitude EEG. This is the first report describing the effect of EEG amplitude on FVEP reproducibility during surgery

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24233355     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-013-9532-8

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


  23 in total

1.  Evoked EEG patterns during burst suppression with propofol.

Authors:  A-M Huotari; M Koskinen; K Suominen; S Alahuhta; R Remes; K M Hartikainen; V Jäntti
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 9.166

Review 2.  Pharmacologic and physiologic influences affecting sensory evoked potentials: implications for perioperative monitoring.

Authors:  Mark Banoub; John E Tetzlaff; Armin Schubert
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  The effects of low-pass filtering on the flash visual evoked potential of the albino rat.

Authors:  N A Shaw
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Guideline 9D: Guidelines on short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.177

5.  Power spectrum and optimal filtering for visual evoked potentials to pattern reversal.

Authors:  N F Skuse; D Burke
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1990 May-Jun

6.  Intraoperative monitoring of cortically recorded visual response for posterior visual pathway.

Authors:  Takahiro Ota; Kensuke Kawai; Kyousuke Kamada; Taichi Kin; Nobuhito Saito
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.115

7.  ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update).

Authors:  J Vernon Odom; Michael Bach; Mitchell Brigell; Graham E Holder; Daphne L McCulloch; Alma Patrizia Tormene
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 8.  Monitoring of flash visual evoked potentials during neurosurgical operations.

Authors:  C Cedzich; J Schramm
Journal:  Int Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  1990

9.  Effects of fentanyl anesthesia on visual evoked potentials in humans.

Authors:  O Z Chi; C L McCoy; C Field
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 7.892

10.  Effect of low-dose ketamine on voltage requirement for transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials in children.

Authors:  Christian Zaarour; Thomas Engelhardt; Samuel Strantzas; Carolyne Pehora; Stephen Lewis; Mark W Crawford
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  2 in total

1.  A pilot study to record visual evoked potentials during prone spine surgery using the SightSaver™ photic visual stimulator.

Authors:  E M Soffin; R G Emerson; J Cheng; K Mercado; K Smith; J D Beckman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 2.502

2.  Comparison of the effect of sedation and general anesthesia on pattern and flash visual evoked potentials in normal dogs.

Authors:  Stephanie Chang; Danielle Zwueste; Barbara Ambros; Jonathan Norton; Marina L Leis
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.792

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.