Literature DB >> 28045853

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Alarm Criteria for Judging MEP Responses to Transcranial Electric Stimulation: The Threshold-Level Method.

Blair Calancie1.   

Abstract

The motor evoked potential (MEP) is used in the operating room to gauge-and ultimately protect-the functional integrity of the corticospinal tract (CST). However, there is no consensus as to how to best interpret the MEP for maximizing its sensitivity and specificity to CST compromise. The most common way is to use criteria associated with response magnitude (response amplitude; waveform complexity, etc.). With this approach, should an MEP in response to a fixed stimulus intensity diminish below some predetermined cutoff, suggesting CST dysfunction, then the surgical team is warned. An alternative approach is to examine the minimum stimulus energy-the threshold-needed to elicit a minimal response from a given target muscle. Threshold increases could then be used as an alternative basis for evaluating CST functional integrity. As the original proponent of this Threshold-Level alarm criteria for MEP monitoring during surgery, I have been asked to summarize the basis for this method. In so doing, I have included justification for what might seem to be arbitrary recommendations. Special emphasis is placed on anesthetic considerations because these issues are especially important when weak stimulus intensities are called for. Finally, it is important to emphasize that all the alarm criteria currently in use for interpreting intraoperative MEPs have been shown to be effective for protecting CST axons during surgery. Although differences between approaches are more than academic, overall it is much better for patient welfare to be using some form of MEP monitoring than to use none at all, while you wait for consensus about alarm criteria to emerge.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28045853     DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000339

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0736-0258            Impact factor:   2.177


  4 in total

1.  Superconditioning TMS for examining upper motor neuron function in MND.

Authors:  Blair Calancie; Eufrosina Young; Mary Lou Watson; Dongliang Wang; Natalia Alexeeva
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Four-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation using multiple conditioning inputs. Normative MEP responses.

Authors:  Blair Calancie; Dongliang Wang; Eufrosina Young; Natalia Alexeeva
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Use of transcranial motor-evoked potentials to provide reliable intraoperative neuromonitoring for the Charcot-Marie-Tooth population undergoing spine deformity surgery.

Authors:  Jeffrey Peck; Kiley Poppino; Steven Sparagana; Patricia Rampy; Spencer Freeman; Chan-Hee Jo; Daniel Sucato
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2021-09-25

Review 4.  Immediate neurophysiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Anli Liu; Mihály Vöröslakos; Greg Kronberg; Simon Henin; Matthew R Krause; Yu Huang; Alexander Opitz; Ashesh Mehta; Christopher C Pack; Bart Krekelberg; Antal Berényi; Lucas C Parra; Lucia Melloni; Orrin Devinsky; György Buzsáki
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-11-30       Impact factor: 14.919

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.