Literature DB >> 28045854

The Percentage of Amplitude Decrease Warning Criteria for Transcranial MEP Monitoring.

Henricus L Journée1, Hanneke I Berends, Moyo C Kruyt.   

Abstract

Muscle motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) became a standard technique for monitoring the motor functions of the brain and spinal cord at risk during spinal and brain surgery. However, a wide range of criteria based on the percentage of amplitude decrease is used in practice. A survey of the current literature on clinical outcome parameters reveals a variety of percentages in a range of 30% to 100% (50% to 100% spinal procedures) with no consensus. The interpretation of muscle MEPs is hampered by their sensitivity to many interfering factors. Trial-to-trial MEP variations may partly be reduced by controllable parameters of which TES parameters are in the hands of the neuromonitorist. We propose an operational model based on basic neurophysiologic knowledge to interpret the characteristics of MEP-TES voltage curves and predict the influences of the location on the sigmoid voltage curve on spontaneous MEP-variations and influences of factors affecting the voltage curve. The model predicts a correlation between the slope, expressed by a gain, and variations of muscle MEP amplitudes. This complies with two case examples. The limited specificity/sensitivity of warning criteria based on the percentage of amplitude reduction can possibly be improved by developing standards for set-up procedures of TES paradigms. These procedures include strategies for desensitizing MEPs for variations of controllable parameters. The TES voltage or current is a feasible controlling parameter and should be related to the motor threshold and the onset of the supramaximal level being landmarks of MEP-voltage functions. These parameters may offer a valuable addition to multicenter outcome studies.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28045854     DOI: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000338

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


  6 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.  Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses.

Authors:  Sanne Lotte Journée; Henricus Louis Journée; Hanneke Irene Berends; Steven Michael Reed; Wilhelmina Bergmann; Cornelis Marinus de Bruijn; Cathérine John Ghislaine Delesalle
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 5.152

3.  Amplitude-reduction alert criteria and intervention during complex paediatric cervical spine surgery.

Authors:  William M McDevitt; Laura Quinn; W S B Wimalachandra; Edmund Carver; Catalina Stendall; Guirish A Solanki; Andrew Lawley
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2022-07-28

4.  Preoperative nTMS and Intraoperative Neurophysiology - A Comparative Analysis in Patients With Motor-Eloquent Glioma.

Authors:  Tizian Rosenstock; Mehmet Salih Tuncer; Max Richard Münch; Peter Vajkoczy; Thomas Picht; Katharina Faust
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 5.  Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring: Focusing on the Basic Knowledge of Orthopedic Spine Surgeon and Neurosurgeon as Members of a Team Performing Spine Surgery under Neuromonitoring.

Authors:  Tetsuya Tamaki; Muneharu Ando; Yukihiro Nakagawa; Hiroshi Iwasaki; Shunji Tsutsui; Masanari Takami; Hiroshi Yamada
Journal:  Spine Surg Relat Res       Date:  2021-03-10

6.  The influence of depth of anesthesia and blood pressure on muscle recorded motor evoked potentials in spinal surgery. A prospective observational study protocol.

Authors:  Sebastiaan E Dulfer; M M Sahinovic; F Lange; F H Wapstra; D Postmus; A R E Potgieser; C Faber; R J M Groen; A R Absalom; G Drost
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.502

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.