Author:
Dulfer Sebastiaan E.,Sahinovic M. M.,Lange F.,Wapstra F. H.,Postmus D.,Potgieser A. R. E.,Faber C.,Groen R. J. M.,Absalom A. R.,Drost G.
Abstract
AbstractFor high-risk spinal surgeries, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is used to detect and prevent intraoperative neurological injury. The motor tracts are monitored by recording and analyzing muscle transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials (mTc-MEPs). A mTc-MEP amplitude decrease of 50–80% is the most common warning criterion for possible neurological injury. However, these warning criteria often result in false positive warnings. False positives may be caused by inadequate depth of anesthesia and blood pressure on mTc-MEP amplitudes. The aim of this paper is to validate the study protocol in which the goal is to investigate the effects of depth of anesthesia (part 1) and blood pressure (part 2) on mTc-MEPs. Per part, 25 patients will be included. In order to investigate the effects of depth of anesthesia, a processed electroencephalogram (pEEG) monitor will be used. At pEEG values of 30, 40 and 50, mTc-MEP measurements will be performed. To examine the effect of blood pressure on mTc-MEPs the mean arterial pressure will be elevated from 60 to 100 mmHg during which mTc-MEP measurements will be performed. We hypothesize that by understanding the effects of depth of anesthesia and blood pressure on mTc-MEPs, the mTc-MEP monitoring can be interpreted more reliably. This may contribute to fewer false positive warnings. By performing this study after induction and prior to incision, this protocol provides a unique opportunity to study the effects of depths of anesthesia and blood pressure on mTc-MEPs alone with as little confounders as possible.Trial registration number NL7772.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine,Health Informatics
Reference43 articles.
1. Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, Dettori JR. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35:S37–46 (cited 2018 May 21). https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00007632-201004201-00006.
2. MacDonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C, American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124:2291–316 (cited 13 May 2018). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24055297.
3. Deletis V, Sala F. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;248–64. https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1388245707006037/1-s2.0-S1388245707006037-main.pdf?_tid=4974142a-5d0d-4881-9209-90cf3c282be3&acdnat=1525852852_6be5628e8a8edbdcfe7d42c13a88f104.
4. Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, Lanteri P, Deletis V, Faccioli F, et al. Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:1129–43 (cited 28 May 2019) . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16723892.
5. Macdonald DB. Overview on criteria for MEP monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;34:4–11 (cited 14 Nov 2018). https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=28045852.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献