Literature DB >> 3808255

Considerations for safety in the use of extracranial stimulation for motor evoked potentials.

W F Agnew, D B McCreery.   

Abstract

The possibility of neural damage during extracranial brain stimulation for motor evoked potentials (MEPs) is discussed from the perspective of animal studies in which the stimulating electrodes were in direct contact with the brain. These data indicate that the charge per phase used in most of the extracranial MEP protocols is sufficient to induce neural damage if the stimulation is applied continuously for several hours. However, in most cases dispersion of the stimulus current in the extracranial tissue and skull is probably adequate to attenuate the stimulus charge density at the brain surface to a safe level (less than approximately 40 microC/cm2 X ph). However, the possibility exists that low resistance paths between the stimulating electrode and the brain may give rise to foci of high charge density. The possibility of such focusing may be less with magnetic field than with direct electrical field stimulation. We stress the need for additional animal studies designed to delineate a range of safe stimulus parameters for this particular technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1987        PMID: 3808255     DOI: 10.1097/00006123-198701000-00030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurosurgery        ISSN: 0148-396X            Impact factor:   4.654


  43 in total

1.  Excitability changes induced in the human motor cortex by weak transcranial direct current stimulation.

Authors:  M A Nitsche; W Paulus
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2000-09-15       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation: specific and non-specific facilitation of magnetic motor evoked potentials.

Authors:  A Hufnagel; M Jaeger; C E Elger
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Effects of electric and magnetic transcranial stimulation on long latency reflexes.

Authors:  G Deuschl; R Michels; A Berardelli; E Schenck; M Inghilleri; C H Lücking
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Fundamentals of transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation dose: definition, selection, and reporting practices.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Timothy A Wagner; Pedro C Miranda; Michael A Nitsche; Walter Paulus; Sarah H Lisanby; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 8.955

5.  Clinical-neurophysiological features of motor lesions in patients with post-stroke epilepsy.

Authors:  A B Gekht; G S Burd; M V Selikhova; V V Belyakov; A V Lebedeva
Journal:  Neurosci Behav Physiol       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

6.  Motor versus somatosensory evoked potential changes after acute experimental spinal cord injury in rats.

Authors:  M Zileli; J Schramm
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.216

Review 7.  [Adverse cognitive effects and ECT].

Authors:  Michael Prapotnik; Roger Pycha; Csaba Nemes; Peter König; Armand Hausmann; Andreas Conca
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2006-04

8.  Pulsed laser versus electrical energy for peripheral nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Jonathon Wells; Peter Konrad; Chris Kao; E Duco Jansen; Anita Mahadevan-Jansen
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-03-31       Impact factor: 2.390

Review 9.  Animal models of transcranial direct current stimulation: Methods and mechanisms.

Authors:  Mark P Jackson; Asif Rahman; Belen Lafon; Gregory Kronberg; Doris Ling; Lucas C Parra; Marom Bikson
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-09-10       Impact factor: 3.708

10.  Motor evoked potentials in the post-surgical follow-up of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

Authors:  M De Mattei; B Paschero; D Cocito; D Cassano; A Campanella; L Rizzo; E Morgando
Journal:  Ital J Neurol Sci       Date:  1995-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.