Literature DB >> 34213721

Optimizing the methodology for saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring upper lumbar roots and femoral nerve during lumbar spine surgery: technical note.

M Ángeles Sánchez Roldán1, Francisco Mora Granizo1, Victoria Oflidis1, Konstantinos Margetis2, Maria J Téllez1, Sedat Ulkatan3, Jun Kimura4.   

Abstract

The demand for intraoperative monitoring (IOM) of lumbar spine surgeries has escalated to accommodate more challenging surgical approaches to prevent perioperative neurologic deficits. Identifying impending injury of individual lumbar roots can be done by assessing free-running EMG and by monitoring the integrity of sensory and motor fibers within the roots by eliciting somatosensory (SEP), and motor evoked potentials. However, the common nerves for eliciting lower limb SEP do not monitor the entire lumbar plexus, excluding fibers from L1 to L4 roots. We aimed to technically optimize the methodology for saphenous nerve SEP (Sap-SEP) proposed for monitoring upper lumbar roots in the operating room. In the first group, the saphenous nerve was consecutively stimulated in two different locations: proximal in the thigh and distal close to the tibia. In the second group, three different recording derivations (10-20 International system) to distal saphenous stimulation were tested. Distal stimulation yielded a higher Sap-SEP amplitude (mean ± SD) than proximal: 1.36 ± 0.9 µV versus 0.62 ± 0.6 µV, (p < 0.0001). Distal stimulation evoked either higher (73%) or similar (12%) Sap-SEP amplitude compared to proximal in most of the nerves. The recording derivation CPz-cCP showed the highest amplitude in 65% of the nerves, followed by CPz-Fz (24%). Distal stimulation for Sap-SEP has advantages over proximal stimulation, including simplicity, lack of movement and higher amplitude responses. The use of two derivations (CPz-cCP, CPz-Fz) optimizes Sap-SEP recording.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; Lumbar spine surgery; Methodology; Saphenous nerve; Somatosensory evoked potentials

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34213721     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-021-00737-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   1.977


  9 in total

1.  Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in scoliosis surgery: A two-year prospective analysis in a single centre.

Authors:  R Krishnakumar; N Srivatsa
Journal:  Neurol India       Date:  2017 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Early recognition of nerve disorders by near-nerve recording of sensory action potentials.

Authors:  A Rosenfalck
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1978 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.217

Review 3.  AAEM minimonograph 19: somatosensory evoked potentials.

Authors:  M J Aminoff; A A Eisen
Journal:  Muscle Nerve       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.217

Review 4.  Recommendations of the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology for intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials.

Authors:  D B MacDonald; C Dong; R Quatrale; F Sala; S Skinner; F Soto; A Szelényi
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Dipole orientation of receptive fields in the somatosensory cortex after stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve in humans.

Authors:  Kazuyoshi Nakanishi; Ken Inoue; Hikmat Hadoush; Toru Sunagawa; Mitsuo Ochi
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.177

6.  Tibial somatosensory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring: recommendations based on signal to noise ratio analysis of popliteal fossa, optimized P37, standard P37, and P31 potentials.

Authors:  D B MacDonald; Z Al Zayed; B Stigsby
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Perioperative neurologic complications during spinal fusion surgery: incidence and trends.

Authors:  Parthasarathy Thirumala; James Zhou; Piruthiviraj Natarajan; Jeffrey Balzer; Edward Dixon; David Okonkwo; D K Hamilton
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: are we really that bad?

Authors:  Matthew Eccher
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.177

9.  Multimodality Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring (IONM) in Anterior Hip Arthroscopic Repair Surgeries.

Authors:  Kathryn Overzet; Mark Kazewych; Faisal R Jahangiri
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-09-22
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.