General Neurology
Brain death/death by neurologic criteria
Nov. 09, 2024
Worddefinition
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas.
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring …
- Updated 06.17.2024
- Released 11.15.1999
- Expires For CME 06.17.2027
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
Introduction
Overview
Multimodal intraoperative monitoring techniques are considered the mainstay for various neurosurgical, orthopedic, vascular, and neurointerventional radiology cases. They allow critical ongoing evaluation of the functional nature of several neural pathways as well as clear identification of vital neural structures during the operation. This approach enhances the likelihood of a more favorable postoperative outcome. Intraoperative monitoring involves a multidisciplinary effort with coordinated input from anesthesiology, neurophysiology, and the operating surgical staff. Different modalities are available to monitor, continuously, important anatomic pathways and to assure the proper identification of eloquent neural tissue, which will be discussed in detail within this article.
Historical note and terminology
Intraoperative neurophysiological assessment or intraoperative monitoring has become an integral part of certain surgical procedures. It can be divided into two basic activities: (1) monitoring: continuous “on-line” assessment of the functional integrity of neural pathways, and (2) mapping: functional identification and preservation of neural structures (114). Intraoperative monitoring is mandatory if neurologic complications are expected due to the disease pathophysiology or if the surgery poses a high risk for neurologic injury. Several different methodologies are used, depending on the nature of the patient’s underlying condition and the needs of the surgical procedure.
The basis of these neurodiagnostic modalities, such as the commonly used somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), were initially designed to objectively monitor clinical disease progression. With the advent of intraoperative motor evoked potentials in the mid-1990s, more and more of these clinical neurodiagnostic technologies are brought into the operative room. The goal of intraoperative monitoring is to (1) detect impending injury of the nervous system in time to be reverted or minimized by corrective measures; (2) teach the surgeon about the detrimental effects of seemingly harmless surgical maneuvers; (3) reassure the surgeon on the safety of specific surgical maneuvers; and (4) predict neurologic outcome (113).
Postoperative paraparesis, or other serious neurologic deficits, had been a feared complication stemming from spinal surgery, especially consequent to corrective intervention for scoliosis (145; 33; 64). The advent of intraoperative monitoring has reduced the risk of serious neurologic deficits (118). Somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring is now a standard of care for monitoring the dorsal column sensory pathways. This approach can detect, early on, potential impending damage to neural structures; thus, it is possible that injury may be averted. Ischemia and mechanical injury are the most likely mechanisms. Damage may arise from direct blunt trauma, excessive compression, distraction, stretching, or vascular insufficiency via embolus or thrombus formation. It should be noted that normal somatosensory potentials or motor-evoked potentials at the end of surgery do not guarantee the absence of delayed paraplegia. Thus, postoperative monitoring, especially after vascular procedures, is occasionally indicated.
Appropriate use of these intraoperative monitoring measures for surgical outcome improvement is still a work in progress. Monitoring provides services beyond simply the warning of the possibility of ensuing complications. It offers advance insight toward prompt intervention (93). A surgeon can feel reassured about the integrity of the spinal cord and can, therefore, extend the procedure to a greater degree. Patients and families can be relieved knowing that certain feared complications are screened for during surgery. Further, some patients may receive technically challenging procedures that would have been avoided in the absence of such feedback about the status of the nervous system. As Muthukumar states: “Considering the enormous costs of health care and the human suffering related to the development of postoperative paraplegia/quadriplegia, there is enough evidence to prove that the cost of performing IONM does not exceed that of providing health care to the injured patients” (90). Ibrahim and colleagues take a different position in expressing concerns that although intraoperative monitoring provides real-time analysis during the procedure, the data are also highly influenced by anesthesia, perfusion pressure, hypothermia, and hyperthermia, stating “…an obvious benefit of IONM providing optimal functional outcomes in patients has NOT been demonstrated. Both low sensitivity and low specificity can have detrimental effects on the surgery and adversely affect patient outcomes” (57). Much more needs to be learned before various intraoperative monitoring methods are standardized.
The frequency of publications devoted to intraoperative neurophysiological techniques has increased significantly over the past few years (142). This reflects continually striving to improve neurologic outcomes after surgery.
Intraoperative monitoring has long been performed in adults for many years; however, it was not as prevalent until the 1980s and early 1990s. Pediatric neurophysiological testing always requires additional considerations for the pediatric population, particularly in those younger than 2 to 4 years of age. Myelination is not complete in either the central or peripheral nervous systems; thus, morphology of the waveforms and its interpretations are nuanced. Additionally, axonal growth of the peripheral nerve does not reach adult size until around the age of 4, which impacts the recorded responses. However, unlike conventional nerve conduction studies and electromyography of the peripheral nervous system, intraoperative monitoring modalities are less constricted by the availability of age-matched standards. The patient’s presurgical responses adequately serve as an accurate baseline, with the goal of maintaining the stability of this baseline throughout the surgical operation. However, it remains imperative to consider the age-specific normative data and potential monitoring pitfalls (30). As such, acquisition of reliable and clinically meaningful neurophysiological signals in the operating room has an additional layer of challenge when it comes to the pediatric population.
Clinical manifestations
Presentation and course
Intraoperative monitoring is utilized in several surgical conditions, including any interventions that are based intracranially or are spine related or peripheral nerve related. Some common diagnoses include the following: (1) spinal dysraphism; (2) scoliosis, posterior spinal fusion; (3) tethered cord release; (4) dorsal rhizotomy; (5) epilepsy surgery; (6) brain/spine tumor resection; (7) peripheral nerve trauma; and (8) peripheral nerve sheath tumor resection.
Prognosis and complications
Prognosis is highly dependent on the type of underlying condition and patient-specific risks during the operation. A retrospective analysis of neurosurgical cases at a single institution over 4 years suggested that intraoperative monitoring is more utilized in surgeries that subsequently demonstrated higher neuro-complications (6.4% vs. 1.5%), despite similarities in the underlying pathology, indicating that surgeons may be choosing to use intraoperative monitoring conscientiously in cases deemed more challenging, diagnosis aside (142).
Clinical vignette
G W was a neurodevelopmentally challenged teenager who suffered from global developmental delay, a mixed seizure disorder, and progressive thoracolumbar scoliosis with associated issues of pain and positioning. Her treating orthopedic physician elected to surgically intervene with planned anterior and posterior correction of the otherwise progressive, clinically significant spinal curvature or kyphoscoliosis. The extensive distraction procedure, with instrumentation, was undertaken with assistance from the neurophysiology monitoring team. Intraoperative monitoring included both upper extremity and lower extremity somatosensory-evoked potentials. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials were also performed as well as two channels of EEG monitoring. The patient had been medicated with valproate acid for her outstanding epilepsy. Her antiepileptic drug levels were therapeutic, and she had no history of bruisability or thrombocytopenia. Intraoperatively, the surgical team was notified of a sudden loss in the TcMEPs followed by a significant increase in latency of the cortical waves of the lower extremity SSEP’s as well as a greater than 50% to 60% reduction in amplitude. This was noted at a time when the deformity was being corrected and there was some significant bleeding. Coagulation studies were sent to the lab and found to be unremarkable. The surgical team decided to be less aggressive with the corrective procedure and reduced the amount by which the deformity was corrected because of the change in the evoked potentials. Postoperatively, G.W. had a spinal straightening of 15 degrees (preoperative curve was 60 degrees). She was able to be more aptly positioned in her wheelchair but, unfortunately, had developed new-onset bowel and bladder incontinence, presumably from an intraoperative myelopathic insult. Some practitioners speculated that the disodium valproate, known to potentially induce a thrombocytopathy without demonstrable thrombocytopenia, played a role--combined with the mechanical stress of surgical distraction--in the initiation of an ischemic event, as detected by the sensitive intraoperative monitoring of the dorsal column pathways.
Biological basis
Etiology and pathogenesis
Several commonly used intraoperative monitoring modalities are reviewed in this section.
Electroencephalogram (EEG). EEG is a common modality used to assess the degree of sedation triggered by anesthesia and to monitor for inadequate intraoperative cerebral perfusion. This is in addition to its benefit in epilepsy monitoring.
EEG waveforms reflect the fluctuating postsynaptic excitatory and inhibitory potentials produced by the cortical neurons and determinate on the interaction of the cortical neurons and thalamocortical relay neurons. The signal is additionally altered due to noise from waveforms penetrating the skull, galea, and scalp. In general, a healthy awake EEG should demonstrate symmetric and synchronized discharges with a posterior to anterior frequency gradient. Other common causes of changes in EEG waveforms include metabolic changes/hypothermia, cortical perfusion/hypoxia, and degree of anesthetic sedation.
Two-channel recording allows for monitoring of degree of anesthesia (degree of drug-induced burst suppression). The number of channels will highly depend on the type of procedure.
Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) aims to reduce the possibility of spinal cord injury during procedures indicated toward overcoming symptoms related to spinal cord deformity. The deformity may be congenital, acquired, traumatic, or neoplastic; the procedure could include decompression, correction, instrumentation, or fusion, all of which are hazardous but less so in the clinical or operative setting of intraoperative neuromonitoring. Intraoperative neuromonitoring can consist of SSEP, TcMEP, and/or EMG; a multimodality combination is preferred (25). To broaden, intraoperative neuromonitoring is also utilized in thyroid, carotid, and aortic surgical cases, as well as central operations.
Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs). The somatosensory pathway communicates between the peripheral nerve and cortex via the spine by two mechanisms: the dorsal column-medial lemniscus and the spinothalamic tract. More specifically, the stimulus is placed at primary afferent nerves, through the dorsal root ganglia, to second-order neurons in the dorsal column-medial lemniscus, to third-order neurons in the ventral posterior nucleus of the thalamus, which then projects to the somatosensory cortex (21). The majority of this information is relayed through the dorsal column-medial lemniscus, with much smaller, if any, involvement of the spinothalamic tract.
Methodology of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials.
Intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring should follow the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society guidelines for intraoperative monitoring (03) and those of the American Society of Neurophysiologic Monitoring (137). The American Scoliosis Society’s position statement of 2009 in favor of intraoperative neuromonitoring should be heeded as well. The electrode sites are demarcated using the International 10-20 system of electrode placement. The preferred recording sites are C3, C4, CZ, FPZ, FZ, A1, and A2. In most instances, utilization of gold cup electrodes in gauze soaked with collodion is favored although subdermal needle electrodes may be used. Additional gold cup electrodes are placed over the cervical spine at the level of C2 and C3 and over the shoulder to serve as grounds. The use of properly sized electrodes appropriately proportioned to the child's head size is essential toward obtaining optimally recorded data. Electrode impedances should be maintained between 2000 and 5000 ohms.
Stimulus is applied at the peripheral nerve afferents. Common locations in the upper extremities include the median nerve at the wrist (UE SSEPs); common locations in the lower extremities include the tibial nerve at the medial malleolus or popliteal fossa (LE SSEPs). The recommended stimulus is a monophasic pulse of 10 to 25 mA and 100 µs of duration although this may be increased if clinically indicated (47). Rates of stimulation are typically near 5 Hz for median nerve and 2 Hz for the posterior tibial nerve; however, exact divisors of 60 Hz are not used so that 60 Hz noise in the signal will cancel out after averaging (47; 127). Generally, 350 to 500 repetitive stimulations are averaged; however, up to 2000 repetitions may be necessary in order to elicit optimal waveform morphology (to minimize noise) (14).
Signal is recorded from four channels: Erb point (to reflect peripheral components or plexus), over the C7 spinus process (to reflect subcortical components), and over the parietal and frontal scalp (to reflect cortical components).
An analysis time of 100 msec is sufficient for the lower extremity SSEPs and for the upper extremity SSEPs 50 msec is appropriate (14; 47). The filter settings are often 30 Hz (low pass) and 3000 Hz (high pass), but many groups use high frequency filters as low as 250 Hz to reduce noise levels.
Most institutions employ the convention of negative potentials producing upgoing deflections, but the opposite convention is used in certain parts of the United States and Europe. Regarding the source generators of key signals, “N” denotes the negative deflection and “P” denotes, conversely, the positive deflection. The number reflects the milliseconds at which the deflection is noted, eg, N13 describes the negative deflection that came at 13 milliseconds.
Each limb should have separate evoked potential testing performed. Although each lab may vary on the exact location of the recording and reference electrodes for the four channels, a common montage is described here. Of note C4’, the “prime,” indicates that the electrodes are 2 cm posterior to the C4 location in the 10 to 20 system.
Left UE SSEP (left limb is the stimulation side) | |
• Cortical (contralateral to stimulation side): recording at C4’ with Fz as reference. Should generate a consistent N20 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the primary sensory cortex. | |
• Second cortical channel (contralateral to stimulation side): recording at C4’ with C3’ as reference. Should generate a consistent N20 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the primary sensory cortex. | |
• Subcortical (ipsilateral to stimulation side): recording at C7 with Fz as reference. Should generate a consistent N18 and P14 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the medial lemniscus tract to thalamus and the cuneate nucleus. | |
• Erb point (ipsilateral to stimulation side): recording at left Erb point using contralateral right Erb point as reference. Should generate a consistent N9 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the proximal brachial plexus. | |
Left LE SSEP (left limb is the stimulation side) | |
• Cortical (contralateral to stimulation side): recording at Cz’ with Fz as reference. Should generate a consistent P37 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the primary sensory cortex. | |
• Second cortical channel (ipsilateral to stimulation side): recording at C3’ with C4’ as reference. Should generate a consistent P37 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the primary sensory cortex. *This channel is ipsilateral and not contralateral as the upper extremity due to the lower extremity sensory cortex is closer to midline. | |
• Subcortical (ipsilateral to stimulation side): recording at C7 with Fz as reference. Should generate a consistent N34 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the brainstem and possibly involves the thalamus. | |
• Popliteal fossa (ipsilateral to stimulation side): recording at left Popliteal fossa using contralateral right Popliteal fossa as reference. Should generate a consistent N8 peak in the waveform of a healthy patient. The generator of this signal is the posterior tibial nerve. | |
Criteria for abnormality (what constitutes warning criteria or an ALERT). It is important to obtain baseline data, including pre-incision tracings. The ALERT criteria are defined by the degree of change in the key peaks noted at baseline in the four channels of SSEP per extremity during the course of the operation.
The ALERT criteria are significant waveform changes (in relation to the baseline tracing) in either an increase in latency equal to or greater than 10% of the preoperative baseline (94; 47), or a decrease in amplitude of more than 50% (94; 92; 150; 47). Of late, there is an advocacy movement toward revising the threshold for alarm to, more adequately, a 60% amplitude attenuation compared to baseline (after skin incision or spine exposure) rather than 50%, based on data (53). The literature suggests that amplitude may be the more sensitive indicator of neurologic deficit, but the criteria for change vary with the type of procedure and the type of expected injury, so careful consideration must be made regarding what criteria will be used in each case.
Pitfalls in SSEP interpretation (understanding the source of noise). The latency and amplitudes of the SSEP peaks can be affected by other intraoperative measures unrelated to direct neurologic injury, including certain anesthetic agents, reduced blood flow and perfusion, changes in blood pressure, changes in temperature, surgical retraction, and local pressure, cautery. Anesthetic agents that impact the SSEPs include volatile anesthetics (dose-dependent impact), barbiturates, propofol, etomidate, ketamine, and benzodiazepines (105; 07).
Patients with known central or peripheral nervous system injuries and pathologies are expected to have an abnormal SSEP baseline. This includes demyelinating conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, HIV infection, B12 or vitamin E deficiency, neurosyphilis, hereditary ataxia, hereditary spastic paraplegia, spinal cord injury, and peripheral neuropathies (21).
Additional factors that can impact the waveforms include patient age, height and limb length, and weight (obesity).
-
Intraoperative posterior tibial evoked potential, 4 hours and 4 minutesIntraoperative measurement 4 hours and 4 minutes after anesthetic induction. Amplitude of the cortical (P37-N45) as well as cervical potentials is significantly reduced, and there is an increase in the latency of the cortical pote...
-
Intraoperative posterior tibial evoked potential, 4 hours and 12 minutesIntraoperative measurement 4 hours and 12 minutes after anesthetic induction. Left posterior tibial stimulation: the amplitude (P37-N45) of the cortical potentials recovered somewhat, but the latency remains increased, and the amp...
Common applications and outcomes with SSEP. Nuwer's experience was that patients with persistent amplitude reduction of greater than 50% maintain a 25% chance toward a new neurologic deficit in the postoperative period (92). The same author mentions that amplitude reductions of less than 50% are not as concerning but do warrant careful neurologic follow up; a similar conclusion was reached by another study including 81 patients (150).
Regarding indications of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, the neurosurgical team at the University of Wisconsin examined the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disease (111). They deemed evoked potential monitoring as a sensitive tool during anterior spinal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Further, they concluded that intraoperative signal worsening does not tightly correlate with clinical worsening and that its recognition does not necessarily prevent neurologic insult. That is, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring does not seem to forecast outcome with reliability. This must be considered in the appropriate context. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with a low risk of neurologic injury, so it will be difficult for any tool to improve outcomes (135; 125). When there is a higher risk of neurologic injury, any tool becomes much more useful.
The value or power of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring has been evaluated in the setting of surgical remediation of tethered cord syndrome in which the risk of injury to nerves embedded in the tether is significant. Of note, neurologists at the Aga Khan University investigatively utilized – beyond the routine tibial SSEPs – clitoral and dorsal penile SSEPs during monitoring (67). They deduced that few data exist to support the merits of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in tethered cord syndrome. This has been challenged by data from the University of Virginia (108). That center contends that electrophysiological monitoring provides, for untethering, an efficient, effective, and reliable method for intraoperative guidance with the goal of reducing iatrogenic injury. They also purport that monitoring, in the form of both a threshold-based interpretation system and continuous EMG, can localize the “autonomous placode” in secondary tethered spinal cord syndrome. For example, clinically, if a newborn has an operation in the perinatal period for myelomeningocele, there is the possibility of subsequent onset secondary tethered spinal cord syndrome. The symptoms of remote or latent onset can typically include progressive bowel or bladder dysfunction with associated lumbago and lower extremity paresthesia and spasticity. The monitoring can detect the tethering placode, a combination of scar and neural structures. The surgeon can, more aggressively, section out the placode and, thus, grant the patient more postoperative relief. In Pouratian and colleagues’ series, the patients benefitted greatly in terms of both intraoperative utility and postoperative outcome (108).
Transient and relatively less significant changes in the amplitude (30% to 50% of baseline) or latency (less than 2 ms) of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials may be seen during surgery due to hypotension/rendering of ischemia, hemodilution, hypothermia/anemia, hypo- or hyper-thermia, hemodilution, hypothermia, or irrigation with cold fluid or due to certain anesthetics; return to the baseline values is seen when these alterations are corrected (49; 47). These alterations often occur gradually over a period of 30 to 60 minutes. On the other hand, clinically significant changes, such as intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential amplitude reductions of greater than 50% of baseline or increases in latency of 10% (2 ms or greater), tend to be acute and not associated with any change in temperature, blood pressure, or the amount or nature of anesthetic administered (47). The Scottish National Spine Deformity Centre espouses an algorithm of action in response to intraoperative monitoring events; in the patient consent forms, they state the possible need to abandon surgery depending on the intraoperative monitoring findings and complete it in a staged manner at a later date (138).
Patients younger than 10 years of age are particularly susceptible to the effects of high concentration--or boluses--of general anesthetics, producing attenuation of the cortical potentials (49). One should realize that increasing concentrations of halothane can quickly produce a decrease in the amplitude of the cortical potentials, which is directly proportional to the end tidal concentration of that gas (150). Cortical potentials in children are also more likely to be attenuated by a combination of anesthetics, such as isoflurane and nitrous oxide, especially in high doses (49). Improved and more assured scalp recordings are obtained through the avoidance of combination anesthetics or by keeping the concentration of nitrous oxide at less than 50% and isoflurane at less than 0.6% when these agents are used together (49).
The greater instability of the cortical responses in children is thought to be due to the lack of symmetry and synchrony in the myelination process (38). Due to the unreliability of the cortical response in children, recording of the cervical potential has been recommended (49). Cervical potentials are more resistant to the effects of general anesthetics and can be used to monitor the integrity of the spinal cord above the surgical level when the cortical potentials are absent (63; 41). If the posterior cervical recording electrode is within the actual operative field, an anterior neck recording electrode can be placed, which is usually referenced to CZ or FZ (48).
When SSEP reaches ALERT criteria (with an amplitude drop greater than 50% or latency increase greater than 10% from baseline) are seen during surgery, the patient and the recording apparatus should first be checked for sources of artifact; the anesthesiologist should be questioned about the subject's vital signs (especially blood pressure and body temperature) and relevant changes in the pharmaco-anesthetic regimen. Remediable causes, such as hypotension, should be dealt with appropriately. SSEP monitoring should continue to determine when and if it is returned to baseline. When cortical or cervical intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential abnormalities return to baseline within 15 minutes of the acute changes, postoperative neurologic sequelae are unlikely to be realized. The opposite is true if the waveform abnormalities persist for periods of time greater than 15 minutes (47).
In circles of physicians performing cervical spine surgery, controversy and debate surround the issue of whether intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials are clinically useful in uncomplicated, non-upper cervical spine procedures. One group, launching a retrospective review of many cases of anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF), concluded that the surgical procedure itself was safe and that intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials had no utility and was, thus, withdrawn from use (135). Certain groups are exploring S100B, a serum marker for glial injury, as an adjunct with evoked potentials, to predict long-term neurologic alteration postoperatively (132).
Some surgeons favor somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during lumbar root decompression. Yue and Martinez found that during L4-5 root decompression, superficial peroneal nerve SSEP (SPN-SSEP) is more reliable than post tibial nerve SSEPs (PTN-SSEP) (152).
A survey was orchestrated from the neurosurgery department at the University of Saskatchewan (107). Canadian neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons were asked revealing questions, through the Canadian Spine Society. Respondents stated that monitoring was performed to reduce the risk of an adverse operative event rather than because of liability concerns, and they collectively favored monitoring in cases of reduction of major deformity (scoliosis), symptomatic and asymptomatic spinal cord compression, spinal cord tumors, and instrumentation. Availability was an issue, as was the lack of neurophysiology specialists within neurology.
Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). Different from the primarily sensory-based monitoring in SSEP, MEPs directly assess the integrity of the motor tracts within the spinal cord. MEPs are the response to multi-synaptic motor stimulation interrogating coordinated functional response of the motor neuron pathway and the muscle response via compound muscle action potentials (CMAP).
Transcortical stimulation is applied to the scalp to activate the primary motor cortex, leading to depolarization of the largest axons in the cortical spinal tract. Direct cortical stimulation can also be performed, which will result in activation of single or closely associated muscles as opposed to compounded excitation (133). The resultant response is the D and I wave. The axons can depolarize at any location along this tract with this location based on the strength of stimulation. There is a direct correlation between the stimulating current in milliamps and the distance between the stimulus and activation of the CST (65; 120). As a result, low stimulating currents can allow more subcortical evaluation of this tract. Overall, the CST response is conveyed to the alpha motor neurons, which will depolarize if the D and I waves generate sufficient excitatory postsynaptic potentials (106; 80; 11). This is subsequently propagated to the peripheral nerves and recorded at the muscle as a compound muscle action potential.
Several texts provide data regarding the innervation of muscles used (22; 82), some citing their practical application for intraoperative monitoring (87).
Methodology of intraoperative motor evoked potentials. Complex and multiple synaptic architecture makes motor pathways more susceptible to ischemic insults, anesthetic drug effects, and surgical injury (stretch and compression) than the SSEP pathway (62). Customarily, two main reasons have ushered in the need for intraoperative motor monitoring. The first stems from the fact that postoperative motor deficits are often profoundly clinically disabling. The second reason centers on the selective vulnerability of the anterior spinal cord to hypoperfusion when compared, in contradistinction, to the posterior columns (87). The ventral spinal cord seems to have fewer anastomotic vascular communications and, further, contains gray matter, predisposing it to hypotensive damage during surgery (87). From a practical standpoint, the MEP changes tend to precede the SSEP changes, making them an earlier warning sign for the neurophysiology team to deal with; this allows greater time for the neuro-orthopedic surgeon and anesthesiologist to rectify aspects of the operation and, thus, mitigate irreversible injury (87).
A relatively high voltage is utilized to generate the transcranial motor response, often a few hundred volts (88). This level of stimulation can be painful in an awake patient. The charge density utilized for TcMEPs is 10% to 15% of that required to induce seizures in humans (80). Reportedly, the incidence of seizures during MEP monitoring for cranial procedures was overall 1.8%. The incidence rose to 5.4% when direct cortical stimulation was additionally applied (141).
Voltage-based stimulation is not commonly undertaken in other settings due to safety issues. Current intensity-based parameters are used for direct cortical stimulation (see “Functional brain mapping” section below). The stimulating electrodes are located at C3-C4 (of the International 10-20 system of electrode placement) for elicitation of upper extremity responses and C1-C2 when looking for activity over innervated lower extremity musculature. The anode (positive electrode) is the one stimulating cathodal (negative electrode) stimulation requires relatively higher currents, so the anode should be placed at C1 or C3 for left lower or upper extremity responses (88). When lower extremity response is not seen with C1-C2 placement, an alternative electrode positioning using CZ as the anode and with the cathode located on the midline 6 cm anterior to CZ (between CZ and FPZ) can be effective. These techniques allow a more vertically oriented vector, which enables a better excitation of the descending axons’ cortical spinal tract neurons (88). The closer the stimulating electrodes are, the more horizontal the stimulus and more robust the I wave.
TcMEPs use somewhat short pulse durations ranging from 50 to 100 microseconds for recovery of the D waves between the also short interpulse intervals of 2 milliseconds (88). Using trains of 4 to 9 stimuli with 2 to 4 milliseconds interpulse intervals tends to overcome anesthetic inhibition of anterior horn cells (87).
Stimulation of the motor cortex produces two patterns of negative waveforms D and I waves with direct recording from the dorsal spinal cord using epidural electrodes. The D wave can be identified as a single negativity, and the I waves are characterized by up to four negative peaks named N2 to N5 (88). D waves are caused by direct stimulation of the corticospinal tract. I waves are caused by stimulation of neurons of deeper layers of the primary motor cortex, which ultimately will cause indirect and “transsynaptic” (cortical-cortical connections) activation of the corticospinal tract.
D waves are less influenced by anesthetic or neuromuscular blocking agents, especially when they are averaged (87).
For practical reasons, often only peripheral recordings are used through needle electrodes inserted on the muscles of interest (the muscle-MEP). Because the focus is on the corticospinal tract, the preference is to monitor the distal muscles of the extremities with EMG needles. The hand muscles used are usually the abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and abductor digiti minimi (ADM). On the lower extremities, corticospinal tract converges over the abductor hallucis brevis and tibialis anterior, which are often used during TcMEPs (88).
Criteria for abnormality (what constitutes warning criteria or an ALERT). Three criteria for interpreting changes in the TcMEP are used. The first is the threshold method (12) in which the typical criterion for abnormality is the need to increase the stimulating voltage more than 100 V from baseline to obtain responses. Another criterion is either absence or a significant reduction in the amplitude of the TcMEP (73; 70). The third criterion is a change in the complexity of the TcMEP waveform (110). The criterion for the change in the D-wave is generally a 50% decline in amplitude (69).
The interpretation of the TcMEPs should take into account all the factors that may alter the signal, such as anesthesia and neuromuscular blocking agents. Barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and propofol are the intravenous anesthetics that are more likely to decrease the amplitude and increase the latency of the TcMEPs (60). Inhalatory anesthesia, either halogenated or nitrous oxide, may also decrease the amplitude of the TcMEPs in a concentration-dependent manner (60).
Pitfalls in MEP interpretation (understanding the source of noise). Transcranial electrical stimulation of the motor cortex via motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs) is a desirable method, but its interpretation has several caveats. This method requires careful assessment of the degree of neuromuscular blockade during surgery and of the type of anesthetics used (04). In general, inhalational anesthetics and neuromuscular blockade have been shown to limit the ability of the TcMEP monitoring to detect significant changes. Hypothermia can negatively affect intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring as well. Opioids have little influence on TcMEPs. Further, a stable concentration of inhalational or intravenous anesthetics optimizes TcMEP monitoring (143). TcMEPs have been successfully used to monitor intramedullary spinal surgery in children (69). The combination of electrical TcMEPs and SSEPs in spinal surgery appears to be safe and accurate for predicting neurologic deficits in children (129).
A practical way of troubleshooting a poor signal from myogenic TcMEPs is to consider the main causes (87):
• Signal acquisition method issues |
Calancie and colleagues found that transcranial electrical stimulation of the motor cortex was more efficient in detection of postoperative motor deficits but missed some of the sensory deficits; the opposite was true for intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials (13).
Common applications and outcomes with MEP.
Electrical stimulation of pedicle screws. The goal of neurophysiological testing during screw pedicle placement is to attempt to find the tip (136). The closer the screw tip is to the nerve root, the higher the likelihood of neurologic sequelae. Cadaver studies have demonstrated a 20% chance of screw misplacement, such as misdirection and piercing of the bone wall (52). Radiological verification of the screw placement with plain x-rays is not more precise that neurophysiological testing. The “gold standard” is the computed tomography in real time that is not a practical alternative in the operating room.
The threshold to a response is recorded with progressively higher current intensity, which is delivered at the outer end of the screw. The spontaneous muscle (EMG) activity is also recorded during the screw instrumentation.
The surgeon and the neurophysiology team should be aware of the factors that alter the bone and soft tissue impedance during the surgery. A “wet” surgical field tends to lower the response threshold (88). Some authorities have used a voltage-constant system to circumvent this problem.
After drilling the hole in the pedicle, a needle is inserted just half-way (52). This method allows for greater proximity to the nearby nerve root. Inserting the tip of the needle all the way into the vertebral body would make it more removed from the site; this is where many of the bone wall perforations occur. When using the needle electrode, an EMG response threshold of 4 mA or lower has been associated with bone perforation, provided that the adjacent nerve is normal (52).
Subsequently the screw itself is electrically stimulated. When stimulating the screw, an EMG response threshold of 6 mA or lower has been associated with bone perforation, provided that the adjacent nerve is normal (52).
The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on the functional outcome has been studied primarily in lumbar surgery (136). The lack of electrical stimulation of the pedicle screws is associated with higher risk of neurologic sequelae after spinal surgery (136; 88).
The data related to cervical spine surgery are more limited, but even the most optimistic evaluations show pedicle perforation with 4% to 10% of the screws placed and a smaller incidence (approximately 1%) of radiculopathy as a consequence of the procedure (02). More screws inducing bone wall perforation are seen with surgery at the C4 and C7 levels (02). Thus, there is some room for improvement, and further studies are necessary to establish the role of pedicle testing in cervical surgery.
Transcranial magnetic motor-evoked potentials (TcMMEPs). Transcranial magnetic stimulation produces a motor response by inducing an electrical current on the nerve. Magnetic stimulation causes less discomfort than its electrical counterpart, so it can be done while the patient is awake.
TcMMEPs recorded from the spinal cord will elicit the D and I waves similar to but different from the responses to electrical stimulation (88). As with intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials, transient changes in the magnetically evoked response were not associated with postoperative neurologic deficits. The preliminary experience using cortical-spinal magnetic stimulation in children during spinal surgery is encouraging. In a study with a mixed adult-pediatric population, the use of motor-evoked potentials seemed to improve the sensitivity and sensibility of the intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials to detect postoperative neurologic deficits (100). Among the 500 cases in the latter study, no case of false negative results (normal monitoring recording with postoperative neurologic deficit) was seen when intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials were used in combination with motor-evoked potentials, and the specificity of normal data predicting normal findings in a neurologic examination was 100%. The Department of Neurosurgery at Baylor College of Medicine set an index whereby a MEP signal decrease of 50% or greater was predictive of a postoperative neurologic deficit involving the motor- or corticospinal pathways (29). Krieg and colleagues found that continuous MEP monitoring provides reliable data during resection of metastases in motor-eloquent brain regions. However, they established the warning criteria of an amplitude decline greater than 80% of the baseline rather than the conventional 50% as quoted by most others (71).
EMG. Electromyographic monitoring in the form of free-running EMG is also commonly used in several surgeries, including spinal surgery for scoliosis and anterior discectomy with fusion. Cranial nerve distribution muscles are monitored during some intracranial operations, such as surgery at the base of the skull (acoustic neuroma, meningioma). Whether the cranial nerves are monitored depends on the surgery. The muscles innervated by cranial nerves III to XII are the ones monitored most often during surgery. Additionally, the optic nerve (cranial nerve II) and the visual system can be monitored using visual-evoked potentials (VEPs, see below).
During motor mapping, the response can be further substantiated by using EMG, which also allows for lower stimulus intensity with a visible response (see Motor and cognitive mapping through direct cortical electrical stimulation).
Electromyographic monitoring also has been useful during selective dorsal rhizotomy for the treatment of spasticity. Stimulation of the dorsal rootlets with a 50-Hz frequency is used when looking for exaggerated responses, such as lower stimulus threshold, sustained activity after discharges, or the spread of the response to other muscles (47).
Table 1. EMG Monitoring of Muscles According to Spinal Levels
Level | Muscle(s) |
C2 | Sternocleidomastoid (also CN XI) |
C3 | Trapezius and sternocleidomastoid (also CN XI) |
C4 | Trapezius (also CN XI) and elevator scapulae |
C5 | Deltoid, brachioradialis, and biceps |
C6 | Biceps, triceps, flexor carpi radialis, pronator teres, brachioradialis |
C7 | Triceps, forearm extensors, flexor carpi radialis, pronator teres |
C8** | Triceps, abductor digiti minimi (ADM), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), interossei |
T1 | Flexor carpi ulnaris, abductor digiti minimi (ADM), abductor pollicis brevis (APB), interossei, intercostal muscles |
T2-3-4-5-6 | Intercostal and paraspinal muscles |
T6-7-8 | Upper rectus abdominis, intercostal and paraspinal muscles |
T8-9-10 | Middle rectus abdominis, intercostal and paraspinal muscles |
T10-11-12 | Lower rectus abdominis, intercostal and paraspinal muscles |
L1 | Quadratus lumborum, iliopsoas, cremaster, internal oblique and paraspinal muscles |
L2 | Iliopsoas, quadriceps, adductor longus, adductor magnus, and quadratus lumborum |
L3 | Quadriceps, adductor longus, adductor magnus, iliopsoas, and quadratus lumborum |
L4 | Quadriceps, tibialis anterioris, adductor longus, adductor magnus and iliopsoas |
L5 | Tibialis anterioris, peroneus longus, and adductor magnus |
S1 | Gastrocnemius, abductor hallucis and peroneus longus |
S2 | Gastrocnemius and abductor hallucis |
S2-5 | Anal sphincter |
| |
Visual-evoked potentials. The optic nerve (cranial nerve II) and the visual system can be monitored intraoperatively using visual-evoked potentials. Nonetheless, intraoperative visual-evoked potentials are somewhat challenging due to poor reproducibility of flash visual-evoked potentials in this setting (88). Visual-evoked potentials performed with high-intensity light flashes can improve the reliability of this test during surgery. Visual-evoked potentials with direct recording from the optic nerve may also be easier to obtain during surgery than with scalp leads.
When used during surgery, visual-evoked potentials are done through light-emitting diodes that are attached to contact lenses (88). Using green or high-intensity lights rather than a red-colored source will decrease the intraoperative dark adaptation.
Intraoperative brainstem auditory-evoked potential monitoring (BAER). Intraoperative brainstem auditory-evoked potential monitoring (BAER) has been shown to be useful for the preservation of hearing and vestibular nerve function during the resection of acoustic neuroma/intracanalicular schwannoma and other posterior fossa surgeries (44).
Methodology of intraoperative BAER. As with diagnostic recordings done in the laboratory, the patients receive auditory stimulation delivered by a series of clicks at intensities of 60 to 70 dB hearing level (14). Earphones, transducers, or even direct middle ear inserts deliver the sounds (81). The signals from many stimuli are averaged due to the low amplitude of each individual auditory-evoked response, which is often less than 0.1 µv. The recording can be done on the scalp in the nonoperative brainstem auditory-evoked potentials or directly from the acoustic nerve with special cotton wick electrodes (76). The scalp electrodes are placed on both ears or mastoids, and vertex, and ground. A contralateral (to the side of stimulus) ear-mastoid to vertex montage can help differentiate the waveform IV and V peaks that may be fused in the ipsilateral channel. The signal phase (rarefaction, condensation, or mixed) should be chosen to maximize brainstem auditory-evoked potential wave forms.
The American Clinical Neurophysiology Society Committee on Guidelines for Intraoperative Monitoring of Sensory-Evoked Potentials (03) suggests using click frequencies between 5 and 50 per second. Higher frequencies allow for faster results, which are important in the operating room setting. Nonetheless, signal frequency equal to or higher than 30 clicks per second may produce degradation of the waveforms (18). Using click frequencies that are not multiples of 60 (ie, 11.3 clicks per second) may prevent time-locked summation effects from 60-Hz artifacts generated by multiple electrical devices used in the operating room (76). Overall, the goal should be the identification of the most important components of the brainstem auditory-evoked potentials, namely wave I and wave V, in the shortest time possible (14).
BAER interpretation and use. Experience with this procedure in children is limited. The types of operations in which the brainstem auditory-evoked potentials are used include not only acoustic neuroma resections but also extirpation or revision of posterior fossa and petroclival skull-base tumors, arteriovenous malformations, and aneurysms. Additionally, they are used in microvascular decompression and decompressive procedures in patients with Chiari malformations (suboccipital craniectomy).
Pitfalls in BAER interpretation (understanding the source of noise). The effects of surgery on the brainstem auditory-evoked potentials are interpreted noting the generators of the waveforms to help localize where the problem is taking place.
Table 2. Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Wave Generators
Wave I | Distal acoustic nerve |
Wave II | Proximal acoustic nerve/cochlear nucleus |
Wave III | Superior olivary complex at the level of the lower pons |
Wave IV | Lateral lemniscus |
Wave V | Inferior colliculus or upper pons |
Similar to intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials, intraoperative brainstem auditory-evoked potentials can be influenced by temperature. When the temperature drops below 35°C, the latency of all the waveforms will increase wave V (the most sensitive wave to the thermal effect will disappear with temperatures below 28°C) (47).
Age also has a strong influence in brainstem auditory-evoked potentials, with latencies getting shorter and waveforms becoming better formed with maturation. Waveform I, waveform III, and waveform V achieve mature (adult) latencies sequentially.
Table 3. Brainstem Auditory-Evoked Potential Waveform Maturation
Wave | Age (to reach adult latency range) |
I | Neonatal period (full-term) |
III | 12 to 18 months |
V | 3 months to 5 years |
The brainstem auditory-evoked potentials are resistant to the effects of medications, including benzodiazepines, barbiturates, narcotics, and nitrous oxide. Inhalation general anesthetics (ie, isoflurane, halothane, and enflurane) produce only a mild latency delay and mild decrease in amplitude. Wave V is the most sensitive to the effects of these agents.
Common applications and outcomes with BAER. Intraoperative monitoring of brainstem auditory-evoked potential is of established benefit in the prevention of hearing loss or cochlear nerve impairment during microvascular decompression of the eighth cranial nerve for primary hemifacial spasm (122).
Absolute criteria for intraoperative brainstem auditory-evoked potential abnormalities are not available (14). Reversible disappearance of all brainstem auditory-evoked potential waveforms is compatible with complete recovery, and persistent loss of the brainstem auditory-evoked potential pattern is usually associated with lingering neurologic deficit (14; 61). Typically, changes in wave V are most easily monitorable, and prolongation in latency of more than 10% is considered an early change. Changes up to 20% or 1 msec are considered more significant. Brainstem auditory-evoked potential changes seen during surgery can be divided into three types (47):
Type 1. Gradual and persistent prolongation of waveforms of 1 ms or more. This type of abnormality may or may not be followed by a return to the baseline values. Postoperative type 1 brainstem auditory-evoked potential abnormalities are not accompanied by clinically significant hearing deficits, but careful audiological testing may reveal some minor hearing loss.
Type 2. Sudden loss of wave I through wave V ipsilaterally to the side of the surgery without return to the baseline. Hearing impairment is often observed postoperatively on the same side of the surgery when type 2 changes are seen during surgery. When this happens, there is a good chance that blood supply of the ear, especially the cochlea, will be compromised.
Type 3. When the contralateral brainstem auditory-evoked potential waveforms become abnormal during posterior fossa surgery, the prognosis is poor. Type 3 changes are often associated with other signs of brainstem dysfunction. When this pattern is not accompanied by return to the baseline, it has been correlated with poor outcome, such as death or postoperative survival with severe neurologic deficit, including hearing impairment.
In addition to monitoring the eighth nerve function with intraoperative BAEP, free running EMG of cranial nerve VII innervated muscles, such as the orbicularis oris, orbicularis oculus, mentalis, and frontalis, should be used during surgery for the resection of acoustic neuromas. Because the surgeon often needs to inflict damage on the acoustic nerve to resect the tumor, monitoring the facial nerve distribution muscles may be the most important task to perform during this type of procedure.
When applied to posterior fossa operations, SSEP and EMG within the cranial nerve distribution are often concurrently utilized. SSEP parameters similar to those utilized for spinal surgeries are used (47). The EMG parameters used for posterior fossa surgery monitoring include a vertical display range of 200 to 500 µv, sweeps of 10 msec per screen, a low frequency filter of 30 Hz, and high frequency at 3 to 10 kHz.
The cranial nerve distribution muscles commonly sampled for intraoperative monitoring EMG are inferior rectus (cranial nerve III), superior oblique (cranial nerve IV), masseter (cranial nerve V), lateral rectus (cranial nerve VI), orbicularis oris (cranial nerve VII), stylopharyngeal (cranial nerve IX), cricothyroid or vocalis (cranial nerve X), trapezius (cranial nerve XI), and tongue (cranial nerve XII) (47; 87).
Table 4. Recordings for Cranial Nerve Monitoring, Including EMG, Visual-Evoked Potentials, and Direct Nerve/Nucleus Compound Action Potential
Cranial nerve | Muscle(s) or type of monitoring |
I | Usually not monitored |
II | Usually not monitored. VEP used but often not reliable during surgery. Use high-intensity flashes, green LED contact lenses |
III-IV-VI | EMG - extraocular muscles |
V | EMG - masseter and temporalis |
VII | EMG - orbicularis oris; orbicularis oculi, mentalis, frontalis |
VIII | BAERs, direct eighth nerve or cochlear nucleus compound action potential (CAP) |
IX | EMG – stylopharyngeus |
X | EMG - pharyngeal and laryngeal muscles |
XI | EMG - trapezius and sternocleidomastoid (also C2–3) |
XII | EMG - glossopharyngeus (tongue muscle) |
From: (22; 82; 87) | |
Direct intraoperative EMG from the exposed eighth cranial nerve or nearby cochlear nucleus through monitoring of compound action potentials can be also helpful (88). Compound action potential monitoring has shown that the cochlear component of cranial nerve VIII is sensitive to stretching and heat injuries, which can be a problem due to the use of bipolar electrocoagulation near the auditory portion of cochlear nucleus VIII.
Electrocorticography (ECoG). Electrocorticography is commonly used during epilepsy surgery. Some applications include (1) determining the areas that need to be resected during epilepsy surgery (98; 96; 97); (2) identifying areas of residual discharges after resection of a brain tumor or epileptogenic focus; and (3) functional brain mapping.
SSEPs and MEPs are commonly concurrently utilized, particularly in situations of functional mapping in preparation of seizure foci or tumor resection. The SSEPs are often the first step in cortical localization of the eloquent cortex. SSEPs are recorded during intracranial surgery with a 6- or 8-contact strip of subdural electrodes. Median nerve SSEPs show a phase reversal over the central sulcus near the area of cortical representation of the hand.
The negativity located over the sensory cortex is often alluded to as N1 (77) and corresponds to the N20 on scalp recordings. N1 tends to be relatively small but has a more gradual spatial fall off when compared to P2. Thus, N1 is seen several centimeters around its point of maximal negativity. A positivity located over the hand somatomotor cortex is noted 1 to 2 milliseconds later and corresponds to the P22 of the scalp recordings. The component has been named P2, with a major positivity peaking around 2 to 3 msec after N1 and which was maximal range over the post-central gyrus but may extend to the precentral gyrus. The absolute latency of P2 was calculated to be 22.3+/-1.6 msec (24). P2 has a fast fall-off, disappearing 1 to 2 cm posterior to the central sulcus (77). The post-rolandic potential (N1) can be differentiated because it is negative and peaks earlier and has amplitude that is twice that of the pre-rolandic primary cortical potential (24). Waveform morphology is best when subdural strip electrodes are perpendicular to the central fissure.
The position of the phase reversal of the cortical potentials of the median SSEP (recorded in a reference montage) tends to be across the rolandic fissure as verified by motor response to direct electrical stimulation (24). Nonetheless, the phase reversal is sometimes anterior to the rolandic fissure (24). In these recordings, it is important to make sure that the recording strip is oriented perpendicular to the sulcus being studied.
During neurosurgical procedures, brain mapping can be also done using direct electrical cortical stimulation (as opposed to transcranial MEPs) to provide an improvement in otherwise intractable epilepsy, facilitating more aggressive and complete removal of the epileptogenic tissue, a brain tumor, or both.
When performing direct electrical stimulation MEP, a couple of electrical principles are helpful to remember: (1) the stimulus intensity decreases (attenuates) with the square of the distance from the stimulating electrode; and (2) the strength of a stimulus is thought to be dependent on the charge density. Most cortical stimulation is done with systems that vary the current intensity.
The charge (in Coulombs) during cortical stimulation also can be calculated by measuring the “area under the curve” of one of the phases of the pulse. So, for the usual rectangular pulse, the charge equals the current intensity multiplied by the pulse duration.
Charge C= I x D (I = current intensity; D = pulse duration).
Ohms law relates the current intensity (I) to the resistance (R) and voltage (V).
Ohms law: I = V/R
The current intensity (I) is measured in Amperes (Amp) OR milliamperes (mAmp). The resistance is measured in Ohms (Ω), and the voltage is measured in Volts (V) or millivolts (mV).
The energy (E) required to move an electrical current through the tissue is expressed (in Joules) and is related to the square current intensity, pulse duration, and resistance.
E = I2 x D x R.
The charge density (CD) is calculated dividing the charge (C) by the area of the stimulating electrode (ASE) assuming the transmission media is uniform.
Charge density CD = C/ASE
The surface of a bipolar wand electrode (4 cm2 surface) is higher when compared with a subdural grid lead (12 to 13 cm2 surface). The charge density of a hemispheric ball electrode is 159 to 796 microcoulombs/cm2 per phase for peak currents of 13.6 to 15 mA (74). Subdural grid leads will deliver charge densities of 54 to 57 microcoulombs/cm2 per phase for peak currents of 13.6 to 15 mA.
While in the operating room, the surgeon often uses a bipolar stimulator with a range of current intensity from 1 to 15 mA and with a pulse duration of 200 to 1000 microseconds, using a biphasic pulse set at a 50 to 60 Hz frequency. Young children and toddlers may require longer pulse durations of 500 to 1000 microseconds and somewhat higher currents of 10 to 15 mA. The stimulus delivery is generally three seconds long. One should be careful with longer durations of four to five seconds and amperage higher than 15 mA as they may cause activation of neighboring tissues. Some stimulators such as the Ojemann Cortical Stimulator are set to deliver an amperage that is half of the total current because the dial takes into consideration the current from the baseline to the first peak and not from peak to trough.
Cortical stimulation parameters
Current intensity | Pulse duration | Pulse frequency | Pulse type |
1-15 mA | 200-1000 msec | 50-60 Hz | Biphasic |
This type of mapping minimizes the risk of neurologic morbidity, whether it be speech and language deficit or motor or sensory loss. Adults and older children (usually 12 years and older) can undergo “awake craniotomies” in which they are under anesthesia for opening and closing of the skull and dura but awake during the resection of the tumor or epileptic focus.
During awake craniotomy, if our patients are completely cooperative, we perform motor and cognitive testing (such as picture naming) during most of the surgery after cortical exposure. In some cases, we also perform ongoing motor stimulation as witnessed by EMG recordings, which allows for the use of a weaker cortical stimulus and fewer patient movements, thus, enhancing the safety of the procedure. Furthermore, we can also stimulate the white matter before resections looking for motor and cognitive dysfunction. This is especially important during temporal and paracentral resections in which the fibers connecting eloquent cortex are vulnerable to operative insult.
The multi-pulse technique used to obtain the TcMEP has many advantages over the Penfield technique. In particular, it can map motor pathways during general anesthesia. It also has a lower likelihood of generating seizures. However, the longer stimulation times used with the Penfield technique are useful in studying cognitive functions.
Pitfalls in ECoG interpretation (understanding the source of noise). Several combinations of anesthetics have been administered to facilitate intraoperative electrocorticography with and without functional brain mapping. The alpha 2-adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine has been useful (126). Dexmedetomidine tends to produce a natural sleep pattern on EEG and tends to reduce the need for propofol as well as inhalational and opiated anesthetics (126).
Common applications and outcomes with ECoG.
Epilepsy. Some believe that when no interictal discharges are seen after resection, the patients are more likely to be seizure-free than those with persisting discharges (98; 96).
In one study of electrocorticography in intractable frontal lobe epilepsy, a higher percentage of Engel’s classification class I outcome was associated with pre-excision spikes recorded from two gyri or less (p < 0.05) and post-excision spikes absent or limited to the resection border (p < 0.01) (146). Complete lesion excision correlated with class I outcome (p < 0.001). The same study found that only 2% of the cases had class I outcome when spikes were seen distant from the lesion border and no good outcome if more than 24 spikes/minute were seen. Combining completeness of lesion excision with electrocorticography risk factors was highly correlated with class I/II outcome.
In a series of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy, electrocorticography was found to help by predicting poor outcome (83). Baseline electrocorticography with less than one spike per 4 minutes was associated with a poorer prognosis. Conversely, pre-resection electrocorticography showing more than 18 spikes per minute was typically associated with a good outcome.
Spikes with a major positive component are commonly derived from both depth electrodes (78%) and from subdural monitoring strips (72%) (83). Berger and colleagues also found that using electrocorticography to define areas of epileptogenic cortex in and around brain tumors increases the likelihood of satisfactory postoperative seizure control (09).
Intraoperative ECoG is now being utilized during MRI-guided laser-interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for intractable epilepsy, which is an exciting frontier (78).
Asano and colleagues found that intraoperative electrocorticography in children with intractable neocortical epilepsy is reliable only when spike frequency is greater than 10 spikes/minute (05). A spike frequency of less than one spike/minute is largely unreliable for localization of seizure foci.
Salanova and colleagues found that in patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of medically refractory occipital lobe epilepsy, electrocorticography helped improve the outcome (116). Residual spikes on the post-resection electrocorticography were associated with worse outcome.
One study used intraoperative hyperventilation or over breathing to increase the number of epileptiform discharges in children with relative success after removal of those foci, which were not located in eloquent cortex (134). Occasionally, infusions of the proconvulsant barbiturate methohexital are also used.
In electrocorticography of cortical dysplasia, certain patterns appear to predict the outcome more precisely after resections for intractable seizures. In 1995, Palmini and colleagues found that when areas in which the ECoG showed ictal-like or continuous or quasi-continuous patterns were left unresected, the outcome for seizure-freedom was worse.
Table 5. ECoG Patterns Associated with Cortical Dysplasia
Repetitive electrographic seizures | |
• Recruiting/derecruiting frequency around 12 to 16 Hz | |
Repetitive bursting patterns | |
• High frequency (10 to 20 Hz) lasting for 5 to 10 seconds | |
Continuous or quasi-continuous rhythmic spiking | |
• Prolonged trains of rhythmic 2 to 8 Hz spikes | |
(101) | |
Intraoperative electrocorticography is not often used by many epilepsy centers and has been found to be non-useful in cases of surgical management of symptomatic mesial temporal sclerosis (119). Hippocampal electrocorticography (HECoG) may permit a temporal lobectomy to be performed in a tailored fashion. Guided by hippocampal electrocorticography in a temporal lobectomy, a surgeon can minimize the amount of hippocampus removed to minimize postoperative memory decline while maximizing seizure-free outcome (85).
Tumor. In cases of tumor surgery, brain mapping with ECoG, MEP, and SSEP allows more aggressive resections. The decrease of the tumor burden or metastatic disease affords a survival advantage and lesser likelihood of subsequent risky operative intervention. Because the CNS anatomy can be distorted in the presence of tumor and cerebral edema, it becomes critical to rely on intraoperative-evoked potentials for more accurate identification of sensorimotor cortex.
One particular surgical procedure seems to warrant MEP over SSEP. With aneurysm repair is the risk of perforating arteries at the corticospinal tract region, within the corona radiate of the internal capsule. This vulnerable area is best monitored with motor- rather than sensory-evoked potentials, given the neuroanatomy and neurocerebrovasculature (43).
Using electrocorticography to define the seizure focus during low-grade glioma removal may be more effective in children (08).
The adequacy of resection of temporal lobe mass lesions, such as gangliogliomas, cavernous angiomas, and dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumors, can be aided by intraoperative electrocorticography. Resection of spike foci after lesionectomy improved the 3-year seizure-free outcome (130).
Prevention
The goal of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring is prevention of neurologic deficits during and after surgery.
Differential diagnosis
Associated or underlying disorders
Dorsal root rhizotomy. Dorsal root rhizotomy is aimed at reducing faciliatory afferent input to lower motor neurons, thereby improving spasticity. This procedure is commonly used to treat severe hypertonia and spasticity in patients with static encephalopathy and spastic paresis (144; 30).
Dorsal rhizotomy was first used in the late 19th century for alleviation of pain but was found to have the potential for tone reduction (27). Nonselective resection with dorsal rhizotomy led to severe sensory loss, loss of bladder control, postoperative weakness, and persistence of spasticity (15). Surgical outcomes greatly improved after the term “select dorsal rhizotomy” was introduced in the 1970s. This method uses intraoperative EMG to determine the correspondence of each nerve root to specific muscle groups, cutting only those with the most contribution to spasticity. Abnormal muscle tone is thought to be from nerve roots with an abnormal stimulation threshold and spreads activity to muscles that are not typically innervated by that root level (28).
Patient selection is important for the success of select dorsal rhizotomy. It is best reserved for patients with spastic diplegia and quadriplegia. Presurgical evaluation includes identification of co-contraction patterns and contracture pattern of the limb in order to determine target levels and muscle groups. Ideally, the patient is of an age where motor development has been completed (121).
The patient is placed prone with slight Trendelenburg to reduce CSF loss. A lumbar laminectomy is performed to expose the L2-S2 roots, guided radiographically. This level is typically distal to the conus. The size of the surgical incision can be variable: larger surgical sites can lead to poor healing and potential increased risk of scoliosis in multilevel laminectomies, but smaller incisions can lead to unnecessary tugging and stretch of the nerve roots during the procedure (144).
Intraoperative EMG is utilized. Stimulation is done individually on each nerve root within the surgical field during the process, with resultant compound motor action potentials (CMAP) recorded in key muscle groups. A 1-second 50-Hz train at two to three times the intensity of the threshold stimulation for each rootlet is administered, with the response assessed by both palpation of the appropriate limb/muscle groups involved and evaluation of the recorded CMAP response (140). Roots that demonstrate hyperreactivity or unwanted spread to the contralateral side or different myotomal levels are highly contributory to spastic tone, particularly if this is seen in the presurgically identified target muscle groups (31). This monitoring will also allow for careful sparing of sensory roots and roots that are critical for bladder innervation.
Common recording sites include the following (30):
Hip adductor | L2-5 |
Gluteus medius | L4-S1 |
Rectus femoris | L2-4 |
Bicep femoris | L5-S1 |
Tibialis anterior | L4-5 |
Gastrocnemius | S1-2 |
External anal sphincter | S2-4 |
Select dorsal rhizotomy can improve function in patients with spastic diplegia and quadriplegia over time, more effectively than therapy alone (46; 102; 103; 17). This also helps to prevent severe painful contractures, reducing subsequent need for orthopedic interventions.
Complications include the risk of intraoperative hyperthermia due to frequent triggering of muscle spasticity. This issue is easily avoided with intraoperative EMG and the electrophysiologist being in the operating room making real-time joint decisions on degree of stimulation and determining appropriate nerve roots to cut.
Tethered cord. Tethered cord syndrome is a complex and progressive condition that is typically related to congenital pathology leading to tethering of the caudal portion of the spinal cord. The onset of symptoms is variable, spanning from toddlers to adulthood. Surgical management for asymptomatic patients is debatable (139; 01).
Surgical detethering of the cord involves careful dissection of nerve roots and removal of fat tissues encasing the roots and adhering to the conus or cauda equina, as well as release of the right or fatty filum terminale. Several intraoperative measures are used. Free running and triggered EMG recording in target muscle groups, external anal and urethral sphincters (S2,3,4), can prevent postoperative complications, such as incontinence (109; 56; 55). SSEP typically includes pudendal afferents from the anal sphincter and dorsal penile/clitoral afferents from genitalia (67; 115).
MEP can provide immediate information regarding the functional integrity of the monitored segments and ensure preserved motor control after surgery (29; 84; 37; 50). The bulbocavernosus reflex assesses the functional integrity of the S2-4 sensorimotor roots by stimulating the pudendal nerve and recording in the external anal sphincter, a unique set up used exclusively for tethered cord detethering. This polysynaptic reflex is susceptible to general anesthesia but can be recorded in patients as young as 24 days old (23; 112; 104). A reduction of bulbocavernosus reflex amplitude of 75% can be used as a warning criterion (89). Detrusor muscle monitoring allows evaluation of parasympathetic fibers from the S2-4 nerve roots that do not travel with the pudendal nerve, but this is not routinely used.
Peripheral nerve trauma. On one end, intraoperative monitoring can be critical during orthopedic surgical manipulation in shoulder and hip arthroplasties to avoid iatrogenic peripheral nerve injury. One study suggested that use of SSEP, MEP, and EMG would have prevented intraoperative nerve injury in 30% of the patients on retrospective review (59). This is mostly seen in the adult population, but in special circumstances of accidental trauma, this remains applicable.
Management
Outcomes
The limitations of intraoperative evoked potential monitoring must be considered when used during neurosurgical orthopedic, vascular, or other resective or ablative procedures. One factor that must be considered when monitoring intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials is that only the posterior column somatosensory pathways are assessed. Intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials may be misleading at times; there may be false positives (16), and postoperative neurologic deficits may be seen despite unchanged findings during monitoring (75). Overall, intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials tend to be more sensitive for spinal insults that involve multiple regions. More focal intraoperative spinal lesions, either compressive or vascular in nature, are less likely to be detected by intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials (47). To optimize care, certain neurosurgery groups have designed, developed, and implemented a checklist for responding to intraoperative neuromonitoring alerts in spine surgery (155).
The most common pediatric procedure in which intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring is used is the surgical correction of scoliosis (47). In one series, intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring was used to monitor orthopedic procedures in 326 children (49). Among the cases undergoing the latter procedure, 63.7% had idiopathic scoliosis, and 31.2% had neuromuscular scoliosis (49; 47). The presence of cerebral palsy was common among these patients; thus, a complete preoperative baseline neurologic examination is essential for the comparison with the patient’s status after the surgery. As follows, the same is also true for most of the other conditions for which this type of surgery is done, such as myelodysplasia, neuromuscular disorders, and brain and spinal cord malformations.
In the Boston Children's Hospital study, nine of 326 cases had acute changes in the intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials during surgery; in eight cases the surgical manipulation (traction-distraction) was reversed sufficiently to prevent new postoperative neurologic deficit (49; 47). In one case the patient had postoperative paraplegia, most likely due to the need for resection of a spinal cord tumor. The same study noticed three cases (0.9%) of new neurologic deficits that were not detected by the intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring. Two of these cases were focal L4 to L5 radiculopathies (one resolved spontaneously and the other required surgical correction of a loose lamina). One patient had a new onset of urinary retention that resolved in one week. Harper also found that radiculopathies, which were difficult to detect by intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring, occurred in four of 184 cases after surgery for scoliosis repair (45). Earlier work by Wilber and colleagues showed that transient postoperative neurologic deficits were more difficult to predict with intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring (147). Dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potentials would theoretically be ideal to monitor radicular injury. However, dermatomal responses do not have good reproducibility, and this technique has not been utilized in children (47).
The likelihood of neurologic deterioration after surgical repair of scoliosis is greater in patients with neuromuscular spinal curvature or severe scoliosis (79). Postoperative deterioration is more likely to be seen in patients with pre-existing neurologic deficits, such as patients with meningomyelocele (47). The risk of neurologic injury is also higher in patients who need skeletal traction, Harrington rod instrumentation, or sublaminar wire placement, and after a second spinal surgery (147; 47). These high-risk patients are more likely to benefit from intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during these neuro-orthopedic procedures (47). Intraoperative neuromonitoring can be challenging – indeterminate or unreliable – in young patients with immature neural pathways or underlying preexistent malacia (39). The group at Seoul National University Hospital affirms that EMG, MEP, SEP, and BCR (bulbocavernosus) reflex are essential modalities in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for untethering of tethered cord in spinal dysraphism (68). They contend that early intervention is better than waiting for onset of neurologic deficits. Findings include that pathophysiology of the sacral nervous system is both first in onset and principally foremost. McKinney and Islam stress that when evaluating a patient with pediatric scoliosis – as a potential surgical candidate with intraoperative monitoring – be attentive to possible concurrent polyneuropathy; the presence of otherwise unrecognized polyneuropathy could prompt a change in recording parameters (86).
Table 6. Risk Factors for Postoperative Neurologic Deficit After Spinal Surgery
|
Related to the diagnosis |
Related to the procedure |
|
Neuromuscular scoliosis |
Skeletal traction |
|
Congenital scoliosis |
Harrington rod placement |
|
Pre-existing neurologic deficit |
Sublaminar wire placement |
|
Spinal cord tumors |
Previous spinal surgery |
Intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials, as a procedure, is rather benign as long as the technologist performing it complies with the usual safety rules of bioelectrical and EEG equipment. However, burns do occur occasionally (128). The most critical causes of these injuries include improperly grounded electrocautery, defective equipment, and the placement of recording electrodes too near sources of high voltage.
Allergic and contactant-related skin changes, such as contact dermatitis, are uncommon problems with EEG lead placement. Skin abrasion (to reduce impedance) and the various chemical components of the leads (silver, gold, and copper) as well as the paste or collodion used may contribute to these dermatological complications.
One report called for an electrocardiogram artifact that can be produced by intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring (19). The report describes a 3-year-old girl with Goldenhar syndrome in whom the somatosensory-evoked potentials produced an artifact in the electrocardiogram resembling supraventricular tachycardia leading to inappropriate treatment. Another rather odd occurrence was a case report revealing the onset of an acute postprocedural compartment syndrome as a complication of the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring needle electrodes in the arm, prompting multiple emergent surgical fasciotomies (26).
Communication has been an issue. There needs to be familiarity and trust amongst the neurophysiologist, the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist. The “interventional cascade” should follow test, then interpretation, then communication, then intervention, then outcome (123).
Special considerations
Anesthesia
Because the most disabling postoperative deficits are motor deficits, one should be aware of the drugs that can alter TcMEPs. GABAergic drugs, such as barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and propofol, are the intravenous anesthetics that are more likely to decrease the amplitude and increase latency of the TcMEPs (60). As a general rule, barbiturate anesthesia precludes TcMEP monitoring and should not be used unless the possible benefits of neuroprotection outweigh the risks of a lack of motor monitoring.
Inhalational anesthesia with either halogenated or nitrous oxide may also decrease the amplitude in a concentration dependent manner TcMEPs (60). In general, even concentrations 0.5 MAC may affect TcMEPs by halogenated agents with preferential suppression of the motor tracts at the level proximal to the anterior horn cells.
A few combinations have been used including a “nitrous-narcotic” combo remifentanil infusion of 0.2 to 0.5 microgram/kg/minute with 60% nitrous oxide although nitrous oxide also has significant deleterious effects on the TcMEPs. Other combinations are variations of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using some propofol infusion associated with ketamine or etomidate (60). Total intravenous anesthesia using ketamine or etomidate is especially interesting due to low potential of these two drugs to depress either SSEPs or TcMEPs. In fact, etomidate may even increase the SSEP and TcMEP amplitudes. Nonetheless, etomidate may be a proconvulsant and may cause adrenal suppression (60).
High doses of boluses or inhalational anesthetics may produce a decrease in the amplitude of the cortical potentials during intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring (42). Increasing concentrations of halothane can quickly produce a decrease in the amplitude of the cortical potentials, which is directly proportional to the end tidal concentration of that gas (150). Patients less than 10 years of age are particularly susceptible to the effects of high concentration boluses of general anesthetics, which may produce attenuation of the cortical potentials (49). Cortical intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials in children are also more likely to be attenuated by a combination of anesthetics, such as isoflurane and nitrous oxide (49). The most optimal scalp recordings are obtained by avoiding the combination of anesthetics and by, as stated, keeping the concentration of nitrous oxide less than 50% and the concentration of isoflurane less than 0.6% (49). The greater instability of the cortical responses in children is thought to be due to the lack of symmetry and synchrony in the myelination process (38). Due to the unreliability of the cortical response in children, the use of recording sites over the cervical spine has been recommended to monitor the cervical potentials (49). Cervical potentials are more resistant to the effects of general anesthetics and can be used to monitor the spinal cord integrity above the surgical level when the cortical potentials are absent (63; 41).
Overall, the most commonly used and validated anesthetic protocol with TcMEP and SSEP recording is now total intravenous anesthesia with propofol. It was determined that methadone has a statistically significant effect on SSEPs (latency and amplitude) but not TcMEPs; regardless, the difference did not translate into clinical significance (51). Biscevic and colleagues state, emphatically, that the monitoring of motor pathways with transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials requires the avoidance of halogenated anesthetics (halothane, sevoflurane, isoflurane, etc.) and neuromuscular blockade (vecuronium, rocuronium, etc). Further, they state that ketamine-based anesthesia allows for appropriate MEP recordings but that total intravenous anesthesia with propofol is preferred (10).
As stated previously, the brainstem auditory-evoked potentials are fairly resistant to the effects of medications including benzodiazepines, barbiturates, narcotics, and nitrous oxide. Inhalational general anesthetics (eg, isoflurane, halothane, enflurane) produce only a mild latency delay and decrease in amplitude. Wave V is the most sensitive to the effects of these drugs (72).
Further various applications. Intraoperative monitoring is broadening in its indications and strengthening as an important element toward optimal patient care. It is accepted for, inclusively now, the monitoring of pelvic autonomic nerves during laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer, for example (154). Multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is utilized in anterior hip arthroscopic repair surgeries (99). It is employed for brachial plexus neurolysis during delayed fixation of a clavicular fracture (06). Its use – and clinical benefit with optimal resection and safe outcome – in thyroid surgery is well accepted (148; 20; 91). The Japanese group designed an electromyography endotracheal tube for successful intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring dentification and preservation of an extralaryngeal bifurcation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (149). Schneider and colleagues state that, in experienced hands, continuous intraoperative neural monitoring in thyroid surgery can diminish permanent vocal fold palsy, a devastating complication in terms of compromise in quality of life, rates to 0% (117). As a powerful risk minimization tool, it can offer some protection in a medicolegal litigious environment (153). Pelvic intraoperative neural monitoring has been associated with a significantly lower rate of fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer (66). The utility of intraoperative neural monitoring has been evaluated, by cardiothoracic (aortic arch) surgery, and was found to have both a high sensitivity and specificity, but also a high negative predictive value is reassuring for low risk of stroke in the absence of alerts (36). Intraoperative neural monitoring of the facial nerve has been applied, by EMG, in cases of tympanomastoidectomy for chronic ear disease (95); it was found to be both feasible and effective for facial nerve stimulation and identification. The facial nerve is also monitored during surgery at the CP or cerebellopontine angle, along with the cochlear nerve. As stated, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is essentially the mainstay (‘standard of care’) in various spine surgeries, including adult and pediatric procedures (34; 54; 58; 131; 151). Controversy remains within certain neurosurgical circles whether intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (SSEP/TcMEP) is key in elective microsurgical clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (40).
The Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing has released provocative dialogue regarding the “new” American Society of Neuromonitoring supervision guideline and is under scrutiny or attack, principally by SA Skinner from Northwestern and colleagues. He contends that leniency exists in the new guidelines in favor of the telemedicine industry. He favors, as proper science and proper care, a personal-in-room approach toward quality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring that enhances communication (124). The response – by Gertsch and associates from UCSD – applauded Dr. Skinner’s pursuit of important concepts such as teambuilding, collaboration, and effective communication (35). The resources toward personal-in-room intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring are sparse.
Media
References
- 01
- Abu-Ata MM, Pasquali C, Sala F. Intraoperative neuromonitoring in tethered cord surgery in children. J Clin Neurophysiol 2024;41(2):123-33. PMID 38306220
- 02
- Abumi K, Shono Y, Ito M, Taneichi H, Kotani Y, Kaneda K. Complications of pedicle screw fixation in reconstructive surgery of the cervical spine. Spine 2000;25(8):962-9. PMID 10767809
- 03
- ACNS. Guideline eleven: guidelines for intraoperative monitoring of sensory evoked potentials. ANCS 2004.
- 04
- Adams DC, Emerson RG, Heyer EJ, et al. Monitoring of intraoperative motor-evoked potentials under conditions of controlled neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg 1993;77:913-8. PMID 8214726
- 05
- Asano E, Benedek K, Shah A, et al. Is intraoperative electrocorticography reliable in children with intractable neocortical epilepsy. Epilepsia 2004;45(9):1091-9. PMID 15329074
- 06
- Ashman BD, Tewar A, Castle J, Hasan SS, Bhatia S. Intraoperative neuromonitoring for brachial plexus neurolysis during delayed fixation of a clavicular fracture presenting as thoracic outlet syndrome: a case report. JBJS Case Connect 2018;8(4):e85. PMID 30601768
- 07
- Banoub M, Tetzlaff JE, Schubert A. Pharmacologic and physiologic influences affecting sensory evoked potentials: implications for perioperative monitoring. Anesthesiology 2003;99(3):716-37. PMID 12960558
- 08
- Berger MS, Ghatan S, Haglund MM, Dobbins J, Ojemann GA. Low-grade gliomas associated with intractable epilepsy: seizure outcome utilizing electrocorticography during tumor resection. J Neurosurg 1993;79(1):62-9. PMID 8315470
- 09
- Berger MS, Ojemann GA, Lettich E. Neurophysiological monitoring during astrocytoma surgery. Neurosurg Clin North Am 1990;1:65-80. PMID 2135974
- 10
- Biscevic M, Sehic A, Krupic F. Intraoperative neuromonitoring in spine deformity surgery: modalities, advantages, limitations, medicolegal issues – surgeons’ views. EFFORT Open Rev 2020;5(1):9-16. PMID 32071769
- 11
- Busso VO, McAuliffe JJ. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in pediatric neurosurgery. Paediatr Anaesth 2014;24(7):690-7. PMID 24853253
- 12
- Calancie B, Harris W, Brindle GF, Green BA, Landy HJ. Threshold-level repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation for intraoperative monitoring of central motor conduction. J Neurosurg 2001;95:161-8. PMID 11599831
- 13
- Calancie B, Harris W, Broton JG, Alexeeva N, Green BA. "Threshold-level" multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: description of method and comparison to somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 1998;88:457-70. PMID 9488299
- 14
- Celesia GG, Allison T, Bodis-Wollner I, et al. American electroencephalographic society committee on guidelines for intraoperative monitoring of sensory evoked potentials. Guideline eleven: guidelines for intraoperative monitoring of sensory evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol 1994;11:77-87.
- 15
- Cespedes J, Escobar Vidarte OA, Uparela MJ, Osorio-Fonseca E, Alvernia JE. History and evolution of surgical treatment for spasticity: a journey from neurotomy to selective dorsal rhizotomy. Neurosurg Focus 2024;56(6):E2. PMID 38823043
- 16
- Chatrian GE, Berger MS, Wirch AL. Discrepancy between intraoperative SSEP's and postoperative function. Case report. J Neurosurg 1988;69:450-4. PMID 3404244
- 17
- Chen BPJ, Wang KK, Novacheck TF. Selective dorsal rhizotomy for the treatment of gait dysfunction in cerebral palsy: a critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 2019;7(11):e3. PMID 31725025
- 18
- Chiappa KH. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials: methodology. In: Chiappa KH, editor. Evoked potentials in clinical medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997:157-97.
- 19
- Choudhry DK, Stayer SA, Rehman MA, Schwartz RE. Electrocardiographic artefact with SSEP monitoring unit during scoliosis surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 1998;8:341-3. PMID 9672934
- 20
- Cirocchi R, Arewzzo A, D’Andrea V, et al. Intraoperative neuromonitoring versus visual nerve identification for prevention of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in adults undergoing thyroid surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;1:CD012483. PMID 30659577
- 21
- Cruccu G, Aminoff MJ, Curio G, et al. Recommendations for the clinical use of somatosensory-evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2008;119(8):1705-19. PMID 18486546
- 22
- DeJong RN, Magee KR. Motor strength and power. In: DeJong RN, Magee KR. The Neurological Examination. 4th ed. Hargerstown: Harper and Row Publishing Inc., 1979:334-74.
- 23
- Deletis V, Vodusek DB. Intraoperative recording of the bulbocavernosus reflex. Neurosurgery 1997;40:88-92. PMID 8971829
- 24
- Dinner DS, Lüders H, Lesser R, Morris HH. Cortical generators of somatosensory-evoked potentials to median nerve stimulation. Neurology 1987;37:1141-5. PMID 3110649
- 25
- Drake J, Zeller R, Kulkarni AV, Strantzas S, Holmes L. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during complex spinal deformity cases in pediatric patients: methodology, utility, prognostication, and outcome. Childs Nerv Syst 2010;26(4):523-44. PMID 20213189
- 26
- Eli IM, Gamboa NT. Acute compartment syndrome as a complication of the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring needle electrodes. World Neurosurg 2018;112:247-9. PMID 29408593
- 27
- Enslin JMN, Langerak NG, Fieggen AG. The evolution of selective dorsal rhizotomy for the management of spasticity. Neurotherapeutics 2019;16:3-8. PMID 30460456
- 28
- Fasano VA, Broggi G, Zeme S. Intraoperative electrical stimulation for functional posterior rhizotomy. Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl 1988;17:149-54. PMID 3165207
- 29
- Fulkerson DH, Satyan KB, Wilder LM, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials in very young children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2011;7(4):331-7. PMID 21456902
- 30
- Galloway G. Dorsal rhizotomy in the pediatric patient. J Clin Neurophysiol 2024;41:134-7. PMID 38306221
- 31
- Galloway GM, Galloway GM, Nuwer MR, Lopez JR, Zamel KM. Selective dorsal rhizotomies: technique and protocol for monitoring. In: Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. Cambridge University Press, 2010:196-206.
- 32
- Galloway G, Simon M. Pediatric neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring and mapping. J Clin Neurophysiol 2024;41:95. PMID 38306216
- 33
- Gavaret M, Trébuchon A, Aubert S, et al. Intraoperative monitoring in pediatric orthopedic spinal surgery: three hundred consecutive monitoring cases of which 10% of patients were younger than 4 years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(22):1855-63. PMID 21270706
- 34
- George J, Das S, Egger AC, Chambers RC, Kuivila TE, Goodwin RC. Influence of intraoperative neuromonitoring on the outcomes of surgeries for pediatric scoliosis in the United States. Spine Deform 2019;7(1):27-32. PMID 30587317
- 35
- Gertsch JH, Moreira JJ, Lee GR, et al. Response to: is the new ASNM intraoperative neuromonitoring supervision “guideline” a trustworthy guideline? A commentary. J Clin Monit Comput 2019;33(2):193-4. PMID 30806935
- 36
- Ghincea CV, Anderson DA, Ikeno Y, et al. Utility of neuromonitoring in hypothermic circulatory arrest cases for early detection of stroke: listening through the noise. J Thorac Cardiovasc Sur 2020;S0022-5223(20):30455-4. PMID 32204911
- 37
- Giampiccolo D, Basaldella F, Badari A, Squintani GM, Cattaneo L, Sala F. Feasibility of cerebello-cortical stimulation for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of cerebellar mutism. Childs Nerv Syst 2021;37(5):1505-14. PMID 33835202
- 38
- Gilmore RL, Bass NH, Wright EA, et al. Developmental assessment of spinal cord and cortical evoked potentials after tibial nerve stimulation: effects of age and stature on normative data during childhood. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985;62:241-51. PMID 2408871
- 39
- Glover CD, Carling NP. Neuromonitoring for scoliosis surgery. Anesthesiol Clin 2014;32(1):101-14. PMID 24491652
- 40
- Greve T, Stoecklein VM, Dorn F, et al. Introduction of intraoperative neuromonitoring does not necessarily improve overall long-term outcome in elective aneurysm clipping. J Neurosurg 2019:1-9. PMID 30925469
- 41
- Grundy BL. Intraoperative monitoring by evoked potential techniques. In: Aminoff ML, editor. Electrodiagnosis in clinical neurology. 3rd ed. New York: 1992:649-82.
- 42
- Gugino V, Chabot RJ. Somatosensory-evoked potentials. Int Anesthesiol Clin 1990;28:154-64. PMID 2197230
- 43
- Guo L, Gelb AW. The use of motor evoked potential monitoring during cerebral aneurysm surgery to predict pure motor deficits due to subcortical ischemia. Clin Neurophysiol 2011;122(4)648-55. PMID 20869304
- 44
- Harper CM, Harner SG, Slavit DH, et al. Effect of BAEP monitoring on hearing preservation during acoustic neuroma resection. Neurology 1992;42:1551-3. PMID 1641152
- 45
- Harper CM Jr, Daube JR, Litchy WJ, Klassen RA. Lumbar radiculopathy after spinal fusion for scoliosis. Muscle Nerve 1988;11:386-91. PMID 3398884
- 46
- Hays RM, McLaughlin JF, Bjornson KF, Stephens K, Roberts TS, Price R. Electrophysiological monitoring during selective dorsal rhizotomy, and spasticity and GMFM performance. Dev Med Child Neurol 1998;40(4):233-8. PMID 9593494
- 47
- Helmers SL. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in pediatrics. In: Chiappa KH, editor. Evoked potentials in clinical medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997:661-74.
- 48
- Helmers SL, Carmant L, Flanigin D. Anterior neck recording of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials in children. Spine 1995;20:782-6. PMID 7701390
- 49
- Helmers SL, Hall JE. Intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring in pediatrics. J Pediatr Orthop 1994;14:592-8. PMID 7962499
- 50
- Herta J, Yildiz E, Marhofer D, et al. Feasibility of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring during tethered cord surgery in infants younger than 12 months. Childs Nerv Syst 2022;38(2):397-405. PMID 34604917
- 51
- Higgs M, Hackworth RJ, John K, et al. The intraoperative effect of methadone on aomatosensory evoked potentials. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2017;29(2):168-74. PMID 26669838
- 52
- Holland NR. Lumbosacral surgery. In: Husain AM, editor. A Practical Approach to Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring. New York: Demos, 2008:139-54.
- 53
- Huang SL, Qi HG, Liu JJ, Li JL, Huang YJ, Xiang L. Alarm value of somatosensory-evoked potential in idiopathic scoliosis surgery. World Neurosurg 2016;92:397-401. PMID 27241092
- 54
- Huang ZF, Chen L, Yang JF, Deng YL, Sui WY, Yang JL. Multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring in severe thoracic deformity posterior vertebral column resection correction. World Neurosurg 2019;127:e416-26. PMID 30981802
- 55
- Husain AM. A practical approach to neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring. 2nd edition. Springer Publishing Company, 2023.
- 56
- Husain AM, Shah D. Prognostic value of neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring in tethered cord syndrome surgery. J Clin Neurophysiol 2009;26(4):244-7. PMID 19590435
- 57
- Ibrahim T, Mrowczynski O, Zalatimo O, et al. The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring during spinal cord and spine surgery: a critical analysis of 121 cases. Cureus 2017;9(11):e1861. PMID 29375947
- 58
- Ishida W, Casaos J, Chandra A, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic values of intraoperative electrophysiological neuromonitoring during resection of intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: a single-center retrospective cohort and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Spine 2019:1-11. PMID 30835707
- 59
- Jahangiri FR, Blaylock J, Qadir N, Ramsey JA. Multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during shoulder surgeries. Neurodiagn J 2020;60(2):96-112. PMID 32298207
- 60
- James ML. Anesthetic considerations. In: Husain AM, editor. A Practical Approach to Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring. New York: Demos, 2008:55-66.
- 61
- James ML, Husain AM. Brainstem auditory evoked potential monitoring: when is change in wave V significant . Neurology 2005;65(10):1551-5. PMID 16301480
- 62
- Jameson LC. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials. In: Monitoring the nervous system for anesthesiologists and other health care professionals. Seubert CN, Balzer JR, editors. Springer International Publishing, 2023:21-34.
- 63
- Johnson RM, McPherson RW, Szymanski J. The effects of stimulus intensity on somatosensory-evoked potentials during intraoperative monitoring. Anesthesiology 1983;59:A365.
- 64
- Jouve JL, Choufani E, Peltier E, Khal A, Pesenti S. Neuromonitoring for spine surgery in children. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2024;110(1S):103780. PMID 38043606
- 65
- Kamada K, Todo T, Ota T, et al. The motor-evoked potential threshold evaluated by tractography and electrical stimulation. J Neurosurg 2009;111(4):785-95. PMID 19199462
- 66
- Kauff DW, Roth YDS, Bettzieche RS, Kneist W. Fecal incontinence after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer- impact of potential risk factors and pelvic intraoperative neuromonitoring. World J Surg Oncol 2020;18(1):12. PMID 31941505
- 67
- Khealani B, Husain AM. Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring during surgery for tethered cord syndrome. J Clin Neurophysiol 2009;26(2):76-81. PMID 19279498
- 68
- Kim K. Intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring for spinal dysraphism. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2021;64(2):143-50. PMID 32905697
- 69
- Kothbauer K, Deletis V, Epstein FJ. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for intramedullary surgery: an essential adjunct. Pediatr Neurosurg 1997;26:247-54. PMID 9440494
- 70
- Krammer MJ, Wolf S, Schul DB, Gerstner W, Lumenta CB. Significance of intraoperative motor function monitoring using transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (MEP) in patients with spinal and cranial lesions near the motor pathways. Br J Neurosurg 2009;23:48-55. PMID 19234909
- 71
- Krieg SM, Schaffner M, Shiban E, et al. Reliability of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using motor evoked potentials during resection of metastasis in motor-eloquent brain regions: clinical article. J Neurosurg 2013;118(6):1269-78. PMID 23521547
- 72
- Kumar A, Bhattacharya A, Makhija N. Evoked potential monitoring in anaesthesia and analgesia. Anaesthesia 2000;55(3):225-41. PMID 10671840
- 73
- Langeloo DD, Journee HL, deKleuver M, Grotenhuis JA. Criteria for transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring during spinal deformity surgery: a review and discussion of the literature. Neurophysiology Clin 2007;37:431-9. PMID 18083499
- 74
- Lesser RP, Gordon B. Methodologic considerations in cortical stimulation in adults. In: Luders HO, Noachtar S, editors. Epileptic Seizures. New York: Churchill Livingston, 2000:153-65.
- 75
- Lesser RP, Raudzens P, Luders H, et al. Postoperative neurological deficits may occur despite unchanged intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials. Ann Neurol 1986;19:22-5. PMID 3947036
- 76
- Linden DR, Zappulla R, Shields CB. Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring. In: Chiappa KH, editor. Evoked potentials in clinical medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997:601-38.
- 77
- Lueders H, Lesser R, Hahn J, Little J, Klem G. Subcortical somatosensory-evoked potentials in response to hand stimulation. J Neurosurg 1983;58:885-94. PMID 6850273
- 78
- Luedke MW, Pietak MR, Serafini S, Haglund MM, Sinha SR. Intraoperative ECoG During MRI-Guided Laser-Interstitial Thermal Therapy for Intractable Epilepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol 2016;33(4):e28-30. PMID 27261642
- 79
- MacEwen GD, Bunnell WP, Sriram K. Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:404-8. PMID 1123394
- 80
- MacDonald DB. Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002;19(5):416-29. PMID 12477987
- 81
- Martin WH, Stecker MM. ASNM Position Statement: Intraoperative Monitoring of Auditory Evoked Potentials. J Clin Monit Comput 2008;22(1):75-85. PMID 18058246
- 82
- Mayo Clinic Department of Neurology. Motor function II: specific study of muscle. In: Wiebers DO, Dale AJ, Kokmen E, Swanson JW, editors. Mayo Clinic Examinations in Neurology. 7th ed. Mosby, 1998: 177-240.
- 83
- McBride MC, Binnie CD, Janota I, Polkey CE. Predictive value of intraoperative electrocorticograms in resective epilepsy surgery. Ann Neurol 1991;30:526-32. PMID 1789682
- 84
- McIntyre IW, Francis L, McAuliffe JJ. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials are more readily acquired than somatosensory-evoked potentials in children younger than 6 years. Anesth Analg 2016;122(1):212-8. PMID 26516805
- 85
- McKhann GM 2nd, Schoenfeld-McNeill J, Born DE, Haglund MM, Ojemann GA. Intraoperative hippocampal electrocorticography to predict the extent of hippocampal resection in temporal lobe epilepsy surgery. J Neurosurg 2000;93(1):44-52. PMID 10883904
- 86
- McKinney JL, Islam MP. Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring in pediatric patients with polyneuropathy. Childs Nerv Syst 2020;36(11):2801-5. PMID 32215716
- 87
- Minahan RE, Mandir AS. Basic neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring techniques. In: Husain AM, editor. A Practical Approach to Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring. New York: Demos, 2008:21-44.
- 88
- Moller AR. Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring. 2nd ed. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Second Edition, 2006.
- 89
- Morota N. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the bulbocavernosus reflex during surgery for conus spinal lipoma: what are the warning criteria? J Neurosurg Pediatr 2019;23(5):639-47. PMID 30797211
- 90
- Muthukumar N. Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring during surgery for correction of spinal deformity: standard of care or luxury? Neurol India 2017;65(1):80-2. PMID 28084244
- 91
- Naytah M, Ibrahim I, da Silva S. Importance of incorporating intraoperative neuromonitoring of the external branch of the superior laryngeal nerve in thyroidectomy: a review and meta-analysis study. Head Neck 2019;41(6):2034-1. PMID 30706616
- 92
- Nuwer M. Spinal cord monitoring. In: Nuwer M, editor. Evoked potential monitoring in the operating room. New York: Raven Press, 1986:126.
- 93
- Nuwer MR. Spinal cord monitoring. Muscle Nerve 1999;22(12):1620-30. PMID 10567073
- 94
- Nuwer MR, Dawson E. Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord: enhanced stability of cortical recordings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1984;59:318-27. PMID 6203721
- 95
- Oh SJ, Choi SW, Lee S, et al. Application of attachable magnetic nerve stimulator in intraoperative facial nerve monitoring during ear surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020 162(5):773-5. PMID 32151184
- 96
- Ojemann GA. Intraoperative electrocorticography and functional mapping. In: Wyler AR, Hermann BP, editors. The Surgical Management of Epilepsy. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1994:189-96.
- 97
- Ojemann GA. Surgical treatment of epilepsy. In: Wilkins RH, Rengachary SS, editors. Neurosurgery. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996:4173-83.**
- 98
- Olivier A, Awad IA. Extratemporal resections. In: Engel J Jr, editor. Surgical Treatment of the Epilepsies. New York: Raven Press, 1993:489-500.
- 99
- Overzet K, Kazewych M, Jahangiri FR. Multimodality intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) in anterior hip arthroscopic repair surgeries. Cureus 2018;10(9):e3346. PMID 30473979
- 100
- Padberg AM, Wilson-Holden TJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH. Somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosis surgery. An accepted standard of care. Spine 1998;23:1392-400. PMID 9654631
- 101
- Palmini A, Gambardella A, Andermann F, et al. Intrinsic epileptogenicity of human dysplastic cortex as suggested by corticography and surgical results. Ann Neurol 1995;37:476-87. PMID 7717684
- 102
- Park TS, Edwards C, Liu JL, Walter DM, Dobbs MB. Beneficial effects of childhood selective dorsal rhizotomy in adulthood. Cureus 2017a;9(3):e1077. PMID 28401027
- 103
- Park TS, Liu JL, Edwards C, Walter DM, Dobbs MB. Functional outcomes of childhood selective dorsal rhizotomy 20 to 28 years later. Cureus 2017b;9(5):e1256. PMID 28649479
- 104
- Pasquali C, Tramontano V, Sala F. Chapter 27 - Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in tethered cord surgery. In: Deletis JL, Shils FS, Seidel K, editors. Neurophysiology in Neurosurgery. 2nd ed. Academic Press, 2020:365-79.
- 105
- Pathak KS, Amaddio MD, Scoles PV, Shaffer JW, Mackay W. Effects of halothane, enflurane, and isoflurane in nitrous oxide on multilevel somatosensory evoked potentials. Anesthesiology 1989;70(2):207-12. PMID 2643892
- 106
- Pechstein U, Cedzich C, Nadstawek J, Schramm J. Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia. Neurosurgery 1996;39(2):335-43. PMID 8832671
- 107
- Peeling L, Hentschel S, Fox R, Hall H, Fourney DR. Intraoperative spinal cord and nerve root monitoring: a survey of Canadian spine surgeons. Can J Surg 2010;53(5):324-8. PMID 20858377
- 108
- Pouratian N, Elias WJ, Jane JA Jr, Phillips LH 2nd, Jane JA Sr. Electrophysiologically guided untethering of secondary tethered spinal cord syndrome. Neurosurg Focus 2010;29(1):E3. PMID 20594001
- 109
- Quinones-Hinojosa A, Gadkary CA, Gulati M, et al. Neurophysiological monitoring for safe surgical tethered cord syndrome release in adults. Surg Neurol 2004;62(2):127-33. PMID 15261505
- 110
- Quinones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G, et al. Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurg 2005;56:982,93. PMID 15854246
- 111
- Resnick DK, Anderson PA, Kaiser MG, et al; Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Electrophysiological monitoring during surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11(2):245-52. PMID 19769504
- 112
- Rodi Z, Vodusek DB. Intraoperative monitoring of the bulbocavernosus reflex: the method and its problems. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112(5):879-83. PMID 11336905
- 113
- Sala F. Intraoperative neurophysiology in pediatric neurosurgery: a historical perspective. Childs Nerv Syst 2023;39(10):2929-41. PMID 37776333
- 114
- Sala F, Krzan MF, Deletis V. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in pediatric neurosurgery: why, when, how. Childs Nerv Syst 2002;18(6-7):264-87. PMID 12172930
- 115
- Sala F, Squintani G, Tramontano V, Arcaro C, Faccioli F, Mazza C. Intraoperative neurophysiology in tethered cord surgery: techniques and results. Childs Nerv Syst 2013;29(9):1611-24. PMID 24013331
- 116
- Salanova V, Andermann F, Olivier A, Rasmussen T, Quesney LF. Occipital lobe epilepsy: electroclinical manifestations, electrocorticography, cortical stimulation and outcome in 42 patients treated between 1930 and 1991. Surgery of occipital lobe epilepsy. Brain 1992;115(Pt 6):1655-80. PMID 1486456
- 117
- Schneider R, Machens A, Lorenz K, Dralle H. Intraoperative nerve monitoring in thyroid surgery--shifting current paradigms. Gland Surg 2020;9(suppl 2):S120-8. PMID 32175252
- 118
- Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP, et al. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg 2007;89-2440-9. PMID 17974887
- 119
- Schwartz TH, Bazil CW, Walczak TS, Chan S, Pedley TA, Goodman RR. The predictive value of intraoperative electrocorticography in resections for limbic epilepsy associated with mesial temporal sclerosis. Neurosurgery 1997;40(2):302-11. PMID 9007862
- 120
- Seidel K, Beck J, Stieglitz L, Schucht P, Raabe A. The warning-sign hierarchy between quantitative subcortical motor mapping and continuous motor evoked potential monitoring during resection of supratentorial brain tumors. J Neurosurg 2013;118(2):287-96. PMID 23198802
- 121
- Sindou M, Duraffourg M, Georgoulis G. Brief on decision-making for neurosurgery of spasticity in adults and children. Neurosurgery for spasticity: a practical guide for treating children and adults. Springer International Publishing, 2022:315-18.
- 122
- Sindou MP. Microvascular decompression for primary hemifacial spasm: Importance of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Acta Neurochir 2005;147(10):1019-26. PMID 16094508
- 123
- Skinner S, Holdefer R, McAuliffe JJ, Sala F. Medical error avoidance in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring: the communication imperative. J Clin Neurophysiol 2017;34(6):477-83. PMID 29023306
- 124
- Skinner SA, Aydinlar EI, Borges LF, et al. Is the new ASNM intraoperative neuromonitoring supervision guideline’ a trustworthy guideline? A commentary. J Clin Monit Comput 2019;33(2):185-90. PMID 30612285
- 125
- Smith PN, Balzer JR, Khan MH, et al. Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in nonmyelopathic patients: a review of 1,039 cases. Spine J 2007;7:83-7. PMID 17197338
- 126
- Souter MJ, Rozet I, Ojemann JG, et al. Dexmedetomidine sedation during awake craniotomy for seizure resection: effects on electrocorticography. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2007;19(1):38-44. PMID 17198099
- 127
- Stecker MM. Generalized averaging and noise levels in evoked responses. Comput Biol Med 2000;30(5):247-65. PMID 10913772
- 128
- Stecker MM, Patterson T, Netherton B. Mechanisms of electrode induced injury. Part 1: theory. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 2006;46(4):315-42. PMID 17285816
- 129
- Stephen JP, Sullivan MR, Hicks RG, et al. Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation in children using simultaneous motor and somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring. Spine 1996;21:2450-7. PMID 8923630
- 130
- Sugano H, Shimizu H, Sunaga S. Efficacy of intraoperative electrocorticography for assessing seizure outcomes in intractable epilepsy patients with temporal-lobe-mass lesions. Seizure 2007;16(2):120-7. PMID 17158074
- 131
- Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Jeszenszky D, et al. The impact and value of uni- and multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring on neurological complications during spine surgery: a prospective study of 2728 patients. Eur Spine J 2019;28(3):599-610. PMID 30560453
- 132
- Szelenyi A, Heukamp C, Seifert V, Marquardt G. S100B, intraoperative neuromonitoring findings and their relation to clinical outcome in surgically treated intradural spinal lesions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014;156(4):733-9. PMID 24390083
- 133
- Szelenyi A, Langer D, Beck J, et al. Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery. Neurophysiol Clin 2007;37(6):391-8. PMID 18083494
- 134
- Tanaka T, Hashizume K, Kunimoto M, Yonemasu Y, Chiba S, Oki J. Intraoperative electrocorticography in children with medically intractable epilepsy. Neurol Med Chir 1996;36(7):440-6. PMID 8741373
- 135
- Taunt CJ Jr, Sidhu KS, Andrew SA. Somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine 2005;30(17):1970-2. PMID 16135987
- 136
- Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP, et al. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on the function outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spine fusions: a prospective randomized clinical study. Spine 1997;22:2813-22. PMID 9431617
- 137
- Toleikis JR, American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative monitoring using somatosensory evoked potentials. A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. J Clin Monit Comput 2005;19:241-58. PMID 16244848
- 138
- Tsirikos AI, Duckworth AD, Henderson LE, Michaelson C. Multimodal intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during spinal deformity surgery: efficacy, diagnostic characteristics and algorithm development. Med Princ Pract 2020;29(1):6-17. PMID 31158841
- 139
- Tuite GF, Thompson DNP, Austin PF, Bauer SB. Evaluation and management of tethered cord syndrome in occult spinal dysraphism: recommendations from the international children's continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 2018;37(3):890-903. PMID 28792087
- 140
- Turner RP. Neurophysiologic intraoperative monitoring during selective dorsal rhizotomy. J Clin Neurophysiol 2009;26(2):82-4. PMID 19279497
- 141
- Ulkatan S, Jaramillo AM, Téllez MJ, Kim J, Deletis V, Seidel K. Incidence of intraoperative seizures during motor evoked potential monitoring in a large cohort of patients undergoing different surgical procedures. J Neurosurg 2016:1-7. PMID 27341047
- 142
- Vadivelu S, Sivaganesan A, Patel AJ, et al. Practice trends in the utilization of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in pediatric neurosurgery as a function of complication rate, and patient-, surgeon-, and procedure-related factors. World Neurosurg 2014;81(3-4):617-23. PMID 24239735
- 143
- Wang AC, Than KD, Etame AB, La Marca F, Park P. Impact of anesthesia on transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring during spine surgery: a review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 2009;27(4):E7 PMID 19795956
- 144
- Warsi NM, Tailor J, Coulter IC, et al. Selective dorsal rhizotomy: an illustrated review of operative techniques. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2020;25(5):540-7. PMID 32032949
- 145
- Weiss DS. Spinal cord and nerve root monitoring during surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Clin Orthop 2001;(384):82-100. PMID 11249183
- 146
- Wennberg R, Quesney LF, Lozano A, Olivier A, Rasmussen T. Role of electrocorticography at surgery for lesion-related frontal lobe epilepsy. Can J Neurol Sci 1999;26(1):33-9. PMID 10068805
- 147
- Wilber RG, Thompson GH, Shaffer JW, Brown RH, Nash CL Jr. Postoperative neurological deficits in segmental spinal instrumentation. A study using spinal cord monitoring. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:1178-87. PMID 6490694
- 148
- Wu SY, Shen HY, Duh QY, Hsieh CB, Yu JC, Shih ML. Routine intraoperative neuromonitoring of the recurrent laryngeal nerve to facilitate complete resection and ensure safety in thyroid cancer surgery. Am Surg 2018;84(12):1882-8. PMID 30606343
- 149
- Yano, M, Saito Y, Yoshida M, et al. Usefulness of intraoperative neuromonitoring for preservation of an extralaryngeal bifurcation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve: a case report. Int J Surg Case Rep 2018;53:330-2. PMID 30471624
- 150
- York DH, Chabot RJ, Gaines RW. Response variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials during scoliosis surgery. Spine 1987;12:864-76. PMID 3441833
- 151
- Yoshida G, Ushirozako H, Kobayashi S, et al. Intraoperative neuromonitoring during adult spinal deformity surgery: alert-positive cases for various surgical procedures. Spine Deform 2019;7(1):132-40. PMID 30587306
- 152
- Yue Q, Martinez Z. Monitoring superficial peroneal nerve somatosensory evoked potential during L4-5 lumbar root decompression. Spine J 2013;13(8):922-5. PMID 23623638
- 153
- Zhang D, Pino Am Caruso E, Dionigi G, Sun H. Neural monitoring in thyroid surgery is here to stay. Gland Surg 2020;9(Suppl 1):S43-6. PMID 32055497
- 154
- Zhou MW, Huang XY, Chen ZY, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of pelvic autonomic nerves during laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res 2018;11:411-7. PMID 30643466
- 155
- Ziewacz JE, Berven SH, Mummaneni VP, et al. The design, development, and implementation of a checklist for intraoperative neuromonitoring changes. Neurosurg Focus 2012;33(5):E11. PMID 23116091
Contributors
All contributors' financial relationships have been reviewed and mitigated to ensure that this and every other article is free from commercial bias.
Author
-
Ava Yun Lin MD PhD
Dr. Lin of Michigan Medicine has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile
Editor
-
Bernard L Maria MD
Dr. Maria of Thomas Jefferson University has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
See Profile
Former Authors
- Sandra Helmers MD
- Y Helen Han PhD
- Mark M Stecker MD PhD
- Marcio A Sotero de Menezes MD
- Richard P Knudsen MD FAASM CNP FAAP
Patient Profile
- Age range of presentation
-
- 0 month to 65+ years
- Sex preponderance
-
- male>female, >2:1
- Heredity
-
- none
- Population groups selectively affected
-
- none selectively affected
- Occupation groups selectively affected
-
- none selectively affected
This is an article preview.
Start a Free Account
to access the full version.
-
Nearly 3,000 illustrations, including video clips of neurologic disorders.
-
Every article is reviewed by our esteemed Editorial Board for accuracy and currency.
-
Full spectrum of neurology in 1,200 comprehensive articles.
-
Listen to MedLink on the go with Audio versions of each article.
Questions or Comment?
MedLink®, LLC
3525 Del Mar Heights Rd, Ste 304
San Diego, CA 92130-2122
Toll Free (U.S. + Canada): 800-452-2400
US Number: +1-619-640-4660
Support: service@medlink.com
Editor: editor@medlink.com
ISSN: 2831-9125
Also in This Category
-
-
General Child Neurology
Acute cerebellar ataxia in children
Oct. 29, 2024
-
General Neurology
Hepatic encephalopathy
Oct. 23, 2024
-
General Neurology
Bowel dysfunction in neurologic disorders
Oct. 10, 2024
-
Infectious Disorders
Zika virus: neurologic complications
Oct. 08, 2024
-
General Neurology
Coma due to primary brainstem and diencephalic lesions
Oct. 05, 2024
-
General Child Neurology
Cerebral edema in childhood
Sep. 29, 2024
-
Neuro-Ophthalmology & Neuro-Otology
Transient visual loss
Sep. 25, 2024