Effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials for predicting changes in the neurological status of patients with cervical spinal cord tumors in the early postoperative period

2018 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
V. S. Klimov ◽  
V. V. Kel'makov ◽  
N. V. Chishchina ◽  
A. V. Evsyukov
Neurosurgery ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1327-1336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobu Morota ◽  
Vedran Deletis ◽  
Shlomi Constantini ◽  
Markus Kofler ◽  
Henry Cohen ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 475-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Shields ◽  
Yi Ping Zhang ◽  
Lisa B.E. Shields ◽  
Darlene A. Burke ◽  
Steven D. Glassman

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 748-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vedantam Rajshekhar ◽  
Parthiban Velayutham ◽  
Mathew Joseph ◽  
K. Srinivasa Babu

Object This prospective study on intraoperative muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) from lower-limb muscles in patients undergoing surgery for spinal cord tumors was performed to: 1) determine preoperative clinical features that could predict successful recording of lower-limb MMEPs; 2) determine the muscle in the lower limb from which MMEPs could be most consistently obtained; 3) assess the need to monitor more than 1 muscle per limb; and 4) determine the effect of a successful baseline MMEP recording on early postoperative motor outcome. Methods Of 115 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for spinal cord tumors, 110 were included in this study (44 intramedullary and 66 intradural extramedullary tumors). Muscle MEPs were generated using transcranial electrical stimulation under controlled anesthesia and were recorded from the tibialis anterior, quadriceps, soleus, and external anal sphincter muscles bilaterally. The effect of age (≤ 20 or > 20 years old), location of the tumor (intramedullary or extramedullary), segmental location of the tumor (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar), duration of symptoms (≤ 12 or > 12 months), preoperative functional grade (Nurick Grades 0–3 or 4–5), and muscle power (Medical Research Council Grades 0/5–3/5 or 4/5–5/5) on the success rate of obtaining MMEPs was studied using multiple regression analysis. The effect of the ability to monitor MMEPs on motor outcome at discharge from the hospital was also analyzed. Results The overall success rate for obtaining baseline lower-limb MMEPs was 68.2% (75 of 110 patients). Eighty-nine percent of patients with Nurick Grades 0–3 had successful MMEP recordings. Muscle MEPs could not be obtained in any patient in whom muscle power was 2/5 or less, but were obtained from 91.4% of patients with muscle power of 4/5 or more. Analysis showed that only preoperative Nurick grade (p ≤ 0.0001) and muscle power (p < 0.0001) were significant predictors of the likelihood of obtaining MMEPs. Responses were most consistently obtained from the tibialis anterior muscle (68%), but in the other 32% MMEPs could not be recorded from the tibialis anterior but could be recorded from another muscle. The ability to monitor MMEPs was associated with better motor outcome at discharge from the hospital (p = 0.052). Conclusions The likelihood of obtaining lower-limb MMEPs is significantly greater in patients with better functional grades and higher motor power. Muscle MEPs are most consistently obtained from the tibialis anterior muscle but other muscles should also be monitored to optimize the chances of obtaining MMEP responses from the lower limbs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. NOLLET ◽  
P. DEPREZ ◽  
L. HAM ◽  
F. VERSCHOOTEN ◽  
G. VANDERSTRAETEN

Neurosurgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 1199-1207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa ◽  
Mittul Gulati ◽  
Russell Lyon ◽  
Nalin Gupta ◽  
Charles Yingling

Abstract OBJECTIVE Resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors may result in transient or permanent neurological deficits. Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials are commonly used to limit complications. We used both antidromically elicited SSEPs for planning the myelotomy site and direct mapping of spinal cord tracts during tumor resection to reduce the risk of neurological deficits and increase the extent of tumor resection. METHODS In two patients, 3 and 12 years of age, with tumors of the thoracic and cervical spinal cord, respectively, antidromically elicited SSEPs were evoked by stimulation of the dorsal columns and were recorded with subdermal electrodes placed at the medial malleoli bilaterally. Intramedullary spinal cord mapping was performed by stimulating the resection cavity with a handheld Ojemann stimulator (Radionics, Burlington, MA). In addition to visual observation, subdermal needle electrodes inserted into the abductor pollicis brevis-flexor digiti minimi manus, tibialis anterior-gastrocnemius, and abductor halluces-abductor digiti minimi pedis muscles bilaterally recorded responses that identified motor pathways. RESULTS The midline of the spinal cord was anatomically identified by visualizing branches of the dorsal medullary vein penetrating the median sulcus. Antidromic responses were obtained by stimulation at 1-mm intervals on either side of the midline, and the region where no response was elicited was selected for the myelotomy. The anatomic and electrical midlines did not precisely overlap. Stimulation of abnormal tissue within the tumor did not elicit electromyographic activity. Approaching the periphery of the tumor, stimulation at 1 mA elicited an electromyographic response before normal spinal cord was visualized. Restimulation at lower currents by use of 0.25-mA increments identified the descending motor tracts adjacent to the tumor. After tumor resection, the tracts were restimulated to confirm functional integrity. Both patients were discharged within 2 weeks of surgery with minimal neurological deficits. CONCLUSION Antidromically elicited SSEPs were important in determining the midline of a distorted cord for placement of the myelotomy incision. Mapping spinal cord motor tracts with direct spinal cord stimulation and electromyographic recording facilitated the extent of surgical resection.


Author(s):  
Marc R. Nuwer

Intraoperative monitoring and testing is conducted to improve neurological outcomes from surgery that incurs risk of neurological injury. Many techniques are familiar from the outpatient neurodiagnostic laboratory, and can be applied with minor modifications to the operating room setting. Other techniques are specific to the operating room. Transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials cannot be applied to awake patients, but are commonly used under general anaesthesia. Monitoring teams understand the tactics for obtaining quality recordings and calling alarms when potentials change past preset limits. Surgeons and anaesthesiologists have a variety of tactics for responding to adverse neurodiagnostic changes beginning with easy actions. In experienced hands, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring substantially reduces post-operative deficits. For example, in spinal cord monitoring the risk of paraplegia and paraparesis is reduced by 60%. Monitoring is carried out by a technologist in the operating room under the supervision of an experienced neurophysiologist. In straightforward cases, the neurophysiologist may remotely monitor from outside the operating room.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document