Literature DB >> 9566630

Isoflurane plus nitrous oxide versus propofol for recording of motor evoked potentials after high frequency repetitive electrical stimulation.

U Pechstein1, J Nadstawek, J Zentner, J Schramm.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to test the influence of two widespread techniques of general anesthesia on motor evoked potentials (MEP) in response to transcranial and direct cortical high frequency repetitive electrical stimulation. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) based on propofol and alfentanil was examined in 17 patients (group A), and balanced anesthesia (BA), based on nitrous oxide, isoflurane and fentanyl, was studied in 13 patients (group B). Distinct motor responses were available in 15 of 17 patients (88%) of group A, and in one of 13 patients (8%) of group B. Amplitudes increased significantly with increasing stimulus intensity and number of pulses under conditions of TIVA. At the same time, latencies decreased significantly with increasing stimulus intensity and decreasing interstimulus interval, but not with increasing number of pulses. It is hypothesized that propofol suppresses corticospinal I-waves at the cortical level, resulting in a conduction block at the level of the alpha-motoneuron, and that this effect may be overcome by high frequency repetitive stimulation. In contrast, nitrous oxide and isoflurane seem to have an additional suppressive effect on corticospinal D-waves, which may be overcome by higher stimulation intensity. In conclusion, transcranial high frequency repetitive stimulation and TIVA provide a feasible setting for intraoperative MEP monitoring, while higher doses of nitrous oxide and isoflurane are not compatible with recording of muscular activity elicited by the stimulation technique as described.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9566630     DOI: 10.1016/s0168-5597(97)00086-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0013-4694


  13 in total

1.  Predicted current densities in the brain during transcranial electrical stimulation.

Authors:  R N Holdefer; R Sadleir; M J Russell
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 2.  Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update.

Authors:  David B Macdonald
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2006-07-11       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 3.  Remifentanil update: clinical science and utility.

Authors:  Richard Beers; Enrico Camporesi
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.749

Review 4.  [Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring with evoked potentials].

Authors:  R Nitzschke; N Hansen-Algenstaedt; J Regelsberger; A E Goetz; M S Goepfert
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 5.  Anesthesia and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in children.

Authors:  Tod Sloan
Journal:  Childs Nerv Syst       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 1.475

6.  Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during hemorrhage are associated with increased serum propofol concentrations.

Authors:  Jeremy A Lieberman; John Feiner; Mark Rollins; Russ Lyon; Paul Jasiukaitis
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 2.502

Review 7.  Current approach on spinal cord monitoring: the point of view of the neurologist, the anesthesiologist and the spine surgeon.

Authors:  Thomas N Pajewski; Vincent Arlet; Lawrence H Phillips
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Four-limb muscle motor evoked potential and optimized somatosensory evoked potential monitoring with decussation assessment: results in 206 thoracolumbar spine surgeries.

Authors:  David B Macdonald; Zayed Al Zayed; Abdulmoneam Al Saddigi
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-19       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 9.  Spinal cord injury after thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

Authors:  Hamdy Awad; Mohamed Ehab Ramadan; Hosam F El Sayed; Daniel A Tolpin; Esmerina Tili; Charles D Collard
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 5.063

10.  Dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil in postoperative pain control after spinal surgery: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Wonjung Hwang; Jaemin Lee; Jihyun Park; Jin Joo
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 2.217

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.