BACKGROUND: Motor evoked potential (MEP) recording is used as a method to monitor integrity of the motor system during surgery for intramedullary tumors (IMTs). Reliable sensitivity of the monitoring in predicting functional deterioration has been reported. However, we observed false positives and false negatives in our experience of 250 surgeries of IMTs. OBJECTIVE: To delineate specificity and sensitivity of MEP monitoring and to elucidate its limitations and usefulness. METHODS: From 2008 to 2011, 58 patients underwent 62 surgeries for IMTs. MEP monitoring was performed in 59 operations using transcranial electrical stimulation. Correlation with changes in muscle strength and locomotion was analyzed. A group undergoing clipping for unruptured aneurysms was compared for elicitation of MEP. RESULTS: Of 212 muscles monitored in the 59 operations, MEP was recorded in 150 (71%). Positive MEP warnings, defined as amplitude decrease below 20% of the initial level, occurred in 37 muscles, but 22 of these (59%) did not have postoperative weakness (false positive). Positive predictive value was limited to 0.41. Of 113 muscles with no MEP warnings, 8 muscles developed postoperative weakness (false negative, 7%). Negative predictive value was 0.93. MEP responses were not elicited in 58 muscles (27%). By contrast, during clipping for unruptured aneurysms, MEP was recorded in 216 of 222 muscles (96%). CONCLUSION: MEP monitoring has a limitation in predicting postoperative weakness in surgery for IMTs. False-positive and false-negative indices were abundant, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.65 and 0.83 in predicting postoperative weakness.
BACKGROUND: Motor evoked potential (MEP) recording is used as a method to monitor integrity of the motor system during surgery for intramedullary tumors (IMTs). Reliable sensitivity of the monitoring in predicting functional deterioration has been reported. However, we observed false positives and false negatives in our experience of 250 surgeries of IMTs. OBJECTIVE: To delineate specificity and sensitivity of MEP monitoring and to elucidate its limitations and usefulness. METHODS: From 2008 to 2011, 58 patients underwent 62 surgeries for IMTs. MEP monitoring was performed in 59 operations using transcranial electrical stimulation. Correlation with changes in muscle strength and locomotion was analyzed. A group undergoing clipping for unruptured aneurysms was compared for elicitation of MEP. RESULTS: Of 212 muscles monitored in the 59 operations, MEP was recorded in 150 (71%). Positive MEP warnings, defined as amplitude decrease below 20% of the initial level, occurred in 37 muscles, but 22 of these (59%) did not have postoperative weakness (false positive). Positive predictive value was limited to 0.41. Of 113 muscles with no MEP warnings, 8 muscles developed postoperative weakness (false negative, 7%). Negative predictive value was 0.93. MEP responses were not elicited in 58 muscles (27%). By contrast, during clipping for unruptured aneurysms, MEP was recorded in 216 of 222 muscles (96%). CONCLUSION: MEP monitoring has a limitation in predicting postoperative weakness in surgery for IMTs. False-positive and false-negative indices were abundant, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.65 and 0.83 in predicting postoperative weakness.
Authors: Zachary T Olmsted; Brendan Ryu; Ganesh Phayal; Ross Green; Sheng-Fu Larry Lo; Daniel M Sciubba; Justin W Silverstein; Randy S D'Amico Journal: World Neurosurg X Date: 2022-09-15