High-frequency Stimulation Restored Motor-evoked Potentials to the Baseline Level in the Upper Extremities but Not in the Lower Extremities Under Sevoflurane Anesthesia in Spine Surgery :

Amidst controversy about methodology and safety, intraoperative neurophysiology has entered a new era of increasingly routine transcranial and direct electrical brain stimulation for motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring. Based on literature review and illustrative clinical experience, this tutorial aims to present a balanced overview for experienced practitioners, surgeons and anesthesiologists as well as those new to the field. It details the physiologic basis, indications and methodology of current MEP monitoring techniques, evaluates their safety, explores interpretive controversies and outlines some applications and results, including aortic aneurysm, intramedullary spinal cord tumor, spinal deformity, posterior fossa tumor, intracranial aneurysm and peri-rolandic brain surgeries. The many advances in motor system assessment achieved in the last two decades undoubtedly improve monitoring efficacy without unduly compromising safety. Future studies and experience will likely clarify existing controversies and bring further advances.

To demonstrate possible advantages of combined (motor and sensory) versus single modality (either motor or sensory) intra-operative spinal cord monitoring and to investigate risk factors for post-operative neurological sequelae. Recordings of lower limb motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to multi-pulse transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), and tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), were attempted during 126 operations in 97 patients (79 with spinal deformity and 18 with miscellaneous spinal disorders). Combined motor and sensory monitoring was successfully achieved in 104 of 126 (82%) operations. No response to either modality could be recorded in two patients with Friedreich' s ataxia. In 18 patients monitoring was possible in only one modality: SEPs could not be recorded in two patients and MEPs in 16. Significant intra-operative EP changes occurred in one or both modalities in 16 patients; in association with instrumentation in 10 cases, and with systemic changes in 6. After appropriate remedial measures, SEPs recovered either fully or partially in 8/8 patients and MEPs in only 67% (10/15 patients). New deficits were present post-operatively in 6 of the 16 patients with abnormal intra-operative EPs. Normal MEPs at the end of the operation correctly predicted the absence of new motor deficits in all cases. SEPs either remained unchanged or recovered fully after remedial measures in 3 patients with new post-operative motor deficits. Neurological complications were more frequent in patients with miscellaneous spinal disorders and/or pre-existing neurological deficits. No complications occurred in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Combined SEPs and multi-pulse TES-MEPs provide a safe, reliable and sensitive method of monitoring spinal cord function in orthopaedic surgery. This method is superior to single modality techniques, both for increasing the number of patients in whom satisfactory monitoring of spinal cord function can be achieved and, for improving the sensitivity and predictivity of monitoring. Combined SEP/MEP methods may enhance the impact of neuromonitoring on the intra-operative management of the patient and favourably influence neurological outcome.

This article reviews intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring safety based on comparison with other clinical and experimental brain stimulation methods and clinical experience in more than 15000 cases. Comparative analysis indicates that brain damage and kindling are highly unlikely. There have been remarkably few adverse events. Pulse train TES-induced or coincidental seizures (n = 5) are rare, probably because of very brief (<0.03 second) stimuli, anesthesia, and the general absence of predisposing cerebral conditions. Soft bite blocks may prevent tongue or lip laceration (n = 29) or mandibular fracture (n = 1). Rare cardiac arrhythmia (n = 5) and intraoperative awareness (n = 1) may be coincidental. Minor scalp burns (n = 2) are rare. Although possible, no spinal epidural recording electrode complications or injuries resulting from TES-induced movement were found. There have been no recognized adverse neuropsychological effects, headaches, or endocrine disturbances. Comprehensive relative contraindications include epilepsy, cortical lesions, convexity skull defects, raised intracranial pressure, cardiac disease, proconvulsant medications or anesthetics, intracranial electrodes, vascular clips or shunts, and cardiac pacemakers or other implanted biomedical devices. Otherwise unexplained intraoperative seizures and possibly arrhythmias are indications to abort TES. With appropriate precautions in expert hands, the well-established benefits of TES MEP monitoring decidedly outweigh the associated risks.