Literature DB >> 33420971

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve augments motor evoked potentials by re-exciting spinal anterior horn cells.

Yusuke Yamamoto1, Hideki Shigematsu2, Masahiko Kawaguchi3, Hironobu Hayashi3, Tsunenori Takatani4, Masato Tanaka1, Akinori Okuda1, Sachiko Kawasaki1, Keisuke Masuda1, Yuma Suga1, Yasuhito Tanaka1.   

Abstract

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve, immediately prior to conducting transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (TES-MEP), increases MEP amplitudes in both innervated and uninnervated muscles by the stimulated peripheral nerve; this is known as the remote augmentation of MEPs. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying the remote augmentation of MEPs remain unclear. Although one hypothesis was that remote augmentation of MEPs results from increased motoneuronal excitability at the spinal cord level, the effect of spinal anterior horn cells has not yet been investigated. We aimed to investigate the effect of tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve on spinal cord anterior horn cells by analyzing the F-wave. We included 34 patients who underwent elective spinal surgeries and compared the changes in F-waves and TES-MEPs pre- and post-tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. F-wave analyses were recorded by stimulating the median and tibial nerves. TES-MEPs and F-wave analyses were compared between baseline and post-tetanic stimulation time periods using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A significant augmentation of MEPs, independent of the level corresponding to the median nerve, was demonstrated. Furthermore, F-wave persistence was significantly increased not only in the median nerve but also in the tibial nerve after tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. The increased F-wave persistence indicates an increase of re-excited motor units in spinal anterior horn cells. These results confirm the hypothesis that tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve may cause remote augmentation of MEPs, primarily by increasing the excitability of the anterior horn cells.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior horn cells; F-wave; Monitoring; Motor-evoked potentials; Spinal surgery; Tetanic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33420971     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-020-00647-z

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


  34 in total

Review 1.  Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord.

Authors:  Tod B Sloan; Eric J Heyer
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.177

Review 2.  Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring of motor function with myogenic motor evoked potentials: a consideration in anesthesia.

Authors:  Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hitoshi Furuya
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.078

3.  Different effects of tetanic stimulation of facial nerve and ulnar nerve on transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials.

Authors:  Shen Sun; Fu-Bo Tian; Shao-Qang Huang; Jun Zhang; Wei-Min Liang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-03-15

Review 4.  Neurophysiologic monitoring in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Leslie C Jameson; Tod B Sloan
Journal:  Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2012-06

5.  Higher success rate with transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potentials using constant-voltage stimulation compared with constant-current stimulation in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Authors:  Hideki Shigematsu; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hironobu Hayashi; Tsunenori Takatani; Eiichiro Iwata; Masato Tanaka; Akinori Okuda; Yasuhiko Morimoto; Keisuke Masuda; Yuu Tanaka; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Muscle-evoked Potentials After Electrical Stimulation to the Brain in Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery are Less Affected by Anesthetic Fade With Constant-voltage Stimulation Than With Constant-current Stimulation.

Authors:  Masato Tanaka; Hideki Shigematsu; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hironobu Hayashi; Tsunenori Takatani; Eiichiro Iwata; Akinori Okuda; Yasuhiko Morimoto; Sachiko Kawasaki; Keisuke Masuda; Yusuke Yamamoto; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Post-tetanic transcranial motor evoked potentials augment the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials recorded from innervated and non-innervated muscles.

Authors:  Hideki Shigematsu; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Hironobu Hayashi; Tsunenori Takatani; Eiichiro Iwata; Masato Tanaka; Akinori Okuda; Yasuhiko Morimoto; Keisuke Masuda; Yusuke Yamamoto; Yasuhito Tanaka
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input.

Authors:  Alain Kaelin-Lang; Andreas R Luft; Lumy Sawaki; Aaron H Burstein; Young H Sohn; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 5.182

9.  Evaluation of reliability of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential monitoring during spinal surgery under general anesthesia.

Authors:  Hironobu Hayashi; Masahiko Kawaguchi; Yuri Yamamoto; Satoki Inoue; Munehisa Koizumi; Yurito Ueda; Yoshinori Takakura; Hitoshi Furuya
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Variability of motor-evoked potentials recorded during nitrous oxide anesthesia from the tibialis anterior muscle after transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  I J Woodforth; R G Hicks; M R Crawford; J P Stephen; D J Burke
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 5.108

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.