Significance and cost-effectiveness of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical spine surgery

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghassan Skaf ◽  
Chakib Ayoub ◽  
Tony Zreik ◽  
Raja Sawaya ◽  
Nathalie Domloj ◽  
...  
Spine ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 1078-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
HIDEKI KITAGAWA ◽  
TATSUO ITOH ◽  
HARUO TAKANO ◽  
KAZUHIKO TAKAKUWA ◽  
NAOYA YAMAMOTO ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 570-577
Author(s):  
Ryuta Matsuoka ◽  
Yasuhiro Takeshima ◽  
Hironobu Hayashi ◽  
Tsunenori Takatani ◽  
Fumihiko Nishimura ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEFalse-positive intraoperative muscle motor evoked potential (mMEP) monitoring results due to systemic effects of anesthetics and physiological changes continue to be a challenging issue. Although control MEPs recorded from the unaffected side are useful for identifying a true-positive signal, there are no muscles on the upper or lower extremities to induce control MEPs in cervical spine surgery. Therefore, this study was conducted to clarify if additional MEPs derived from facial muscles can feasibly serve as controls to reduce false-positive mMEP monitoring results in cervical spine surgery.METHODSPatients who underwent cervical spine surgery at the authors’ institution who did not experience postoperative neurological deterioration were retrospectively studied. mMEPs were induced with transcranial supramaximal stimulation. Facial MEPs (fMEPs) were subsequently induced with suprathreshold stimulation. The mMEP and subsequently recorded fMEP waveforms were paired during each moment during surgery. The initial pair was regarded as the baseline. A significant decline in mMEP and fMEP amplitude was defined as > 80% and > 50% decline compared with baseline, respectively. All mMEP alarms were considered false positives. Based on 2 different alarm criteria, either mMEP alone or both mMEP and fMEP, rates of false-positive mMEP monitoring results were calculated.RESULTSTwenty-three patients were included in this study, corresponding to 102 pairs of mMEPs and fMEPs. This included 23 initial and 79 subsequent pairs. Based on the alarm criterion of mMEP alone, 17 false-positive results (21.5%) were observed. Based on the alarm criterion of both mMEP and fMEP, 5 false-positive results (6.3%) were observed, which was significantly different compared to mMEP alone (difference 15.2%; 95% CI 7.2%–23.1%; p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSfMEPs might be used as controls to reduce false-positive mMEP monitoring results in cervical spine surgery.


2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cam Thuy Tran ◽  
Larry T. Khoo ◽  
Neil A. Martin ◽  
Sylvia S. Fong ◽  
Marc R. Nuwer

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document