Literature DB >> 27920938

Comparison of effectiveness between cork-screw and peg-screw electrodes for transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring using the finite element method.

Ryosuke Tomio1, Takenori Akiyama1, Takayuki Ohira1, Kazunari Yoshida1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials by transcranial electric stimulation is popular in neurosurgery for monitoring motor function preservation. Some authors have reported that the peg-screw electrodes screwed into the skull can more effectively conduct current to the brain compared to subdermal cork-screw electrodes screwed into the skin. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of electrode design on transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring. We estimated differences in effectiveness between the cork-screw electrode, peg-screw electrode, and cortical electrode to produce electric fields in the brain.
METHODS: We used the finite element method to visualize electric fields in the brain generated by transcranial electric stimulation using realistic three-dimensional head models developed from T1-weighted images. Surfaces from five layers of the head were separated as accurately as possible. We created the "cork-screws model," "1 peg-screw model," "peg-screws model," and "cortical electrode model".
RESULTS: Electric fields in the brain radially diffused from the brain surface at a maximum just below the electrodes in coronal sections. The coronal sections and surface views of the brain showed higher electric field distributions under the peg-screw compared to the cork-screw. An extremely high electric field was observed under cortical electrodes.
CONCLUSION: Our main finding was that the intensity of electric fields in the brain are higher in the peg-screw model than the cork-screw model.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Finite element method; screw; transcranial electric stimulation; transcranial motor evoked potential

Year:  2016        PMID: 27920938      PMCID: PMC5122820          DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.193929

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Neurol Int        ISSN: 2152-7806


  15 in total

Review 1.  Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review.

Authors:  J B Ranck
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1975-11-21       Impact factor: 3.252

2.  Transcranial electrical stimulation through screw electrodes for intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials. Technical note.

Authors:  Katsushige Watanabe; Takashi Watanabe; Akio Takahashi; Nobuhito Saito; Masafumi Hirato; Tomio Sasaki
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.115

3.  Visualization of the electric field evoked by transcranial electric stimulation during a craniotomy using the finite element method.

Authors:  Ryosuke Tomio; Takenori Akiyama; Tomo Horikoshi; Takayuki Ohira; Kazunari Yoshida
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  R N Holdefer; R Sadleir; M J Russell
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Single-layer skull approximations perform well in transcranial direct current stimulation modeling.

Authors:  Sumientra M Rampersad; Dick F Stegeman; Thom F Oostendorp
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 3.802

6.  Transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring for brain tumor resection.

Authors:  H H Zhou; P J Kelly
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials for supratentorial tumor surgery.

Authors:  Jung Jae Lee; Young Il Kim; Jae Taek Hong; Jae Hoon Sung; Sang Won Lee; Seung Ho Yang
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2014-08-31

8.  Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia.

Authors:  U Pechstein; C Cedzich; J Nadstawek; J Schramm
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Neurophysiological criteria for intraoperative prediction of pure motor hemiplegia during aneurysm surgery. Case report.

Authors:  Andrea Szelényi; Adauri Bueno de Camargo; Eugene Flamm; Vedran Deletis
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Sensitivity and specificity in transcranial motor-evoked potential monitoring during neurosurgical operations.

Authors:  Satoshi Tanaka; Takashi Tashiro; Akira Gomi; Junko Takanashi; Hiroshi Ujiie
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2011-08-13
View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of Muscle MEPs From Transcranial Magnetic and Electrical Stimulation and Appearance of Reflexes in Horses.

Authors:  Sanne Lotte Journée; Henricus Louis Journée; Hanneke Irene Berends; Steven Michael Reed; Cornelis Marinus de Bruijn; Cathérine John Ghislaine Delesalle
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 4.677

2.  Effects of electrodes length and insulation for transcranial electric stimulation.

Authors:  Ryosuke Tomio
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2019-06-19

3.  Threshold variation of transcranial motor evoked potential with threshold criterion in frontotemporal craniotomy.

Authors:  Kohei Kanaya; Tetsuya Goto; Tetsuyoshi Horiuchi; Kazuhiro Hongo
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2019-09-04
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.