Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Increases in voltage may produce false-negatives when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury

  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective. Transcranial Motor Evoked Poten- tials (TcMEPs) are sometimes used during lumbar spine surgery in order to detect and prevent an intraoperative nerve root injury. Typically, a fixed stimulus is applied, and one monitors for changes in response amplitude from several myotomes. Increased stimulating voltage may or may not alter the response after an acute injury. Methods. We suture ligated the dominant root innervating the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle in 7 experiments in swine monitored with TcMEPs. Injury to the root was confirmed by an increase in threshold current needed to evoke an EMG response in the TA (from 0.32 ± 0.10 to 2.3 ± 0.9 mA, P < 0.01). We recorded TcMEPs at baseline, after injury, and with incremental 25 V increases in stimulation up to 100 V. Results. After ligation, mean TcMEP amplitude in the TA decreased by 56% from baseline (P < 0.01). Adding voltage progressively restored mean amplitude to within 17% of baseline, but with wide variability in the response. In 1 experiment, there was no augmentation; 3 studies showed partial improvement toward baseline; and in 3 studies, the amplitude was augmented to levels above baseline. Conclusion. An acute nerve root injury may be detected by TcMEP monitoring. However, if the stimulating voltage is increased after injury, the response may or may not be affected. In complex spine procedures, adjustments to TcMEP stimulating parameters are often needed to maintain reproducible responses. However, if these changes are made during a period where injury might occur, this could mask the changes and lead to a false-negative interpretation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pelosi L, Stevenson M, Hobbs GJ, Jardine A, Webb JK. Intraoperative motor evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation during two anaesthetic regimens. Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;112:1076–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Khoudeir I, Stigsby B. Monitoring scoliosis surgery with combined multiple pulse transcranial electric motor and cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials from the lower and upper extremities. Spine. 2003;28:194–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Calancie B, Molano MR. Alarm criteria for motor-evoked potentials: what’s wrong with the “presence-or-absence” approach? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:406–14.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journee H, Slappendel R, de Kleuver M. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1043–50.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Muller A, Dvorak J. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring: an overview and proposal of methodology based on 1, 017 cases. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(Suppl 2):S153–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan D, Schwartz DM, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ. Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27:2499–502.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, Hu SS, Berven SH. The efficacy of motor evoked potentials in fixed sagittal imbalance deformity correction surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E414–24.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lyon R, Feiner J, Lieberman JA. Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of “anesthetic fade”. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2005;17:13–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mok JM, Lyon R, Lieberman JA, Cloyd JM, Burch S. Monitoring of nerve root injury using transcranial motor-evoked potentials in a pig model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E465–73.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Santiago-Perez S, Nevado-Estevez R, Aguirre-Arribas J, Perez-Conde MC. Neurophysiological monitoring of lumbosacral spinal roots during spinal surgery: continuous intraoperative electromyography (EMG). Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;47:361–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quinones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G, Lamborn KR, Gupta N, Parsa AT, McDermott MW, Weinstein PR. Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurgery 2005;56:982–93 (discussion-93).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Matsui H, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Kitagawa H, Nakamura H, Tsuji H. Clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics of compressed lumbar nerve roots. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22:2100–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lyon R, Lieberman JA, Feiner J, Burch S. Relative efficacy of transcranial motor evoked potentials, mechanically-elicited electromyography, and evoked EMG to assess nerve root function during sustained retraction in a porcine model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:E558–64.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liguori R, Krarup C, Trojaborg W. Determination of the segmental sensory and motor innervation of the lumbosacral spinal nerves. An electrophysiological study. Brain. 1992;115(Pt 3):915–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mangun GR, Mulkey RM, Young BL, Goslow GE Jr. “Cross-talk” in electromyograms: contamination of EMGs recorded with bipolar fine-wire electrodes by volume conducted myoelectric activity from distant sources. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1986;26:443–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aminoff MJ, Goodin DS, Barbaro NM, Weinstein PR, Rosenblum ML. Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in unilateral lumbosacral radiculopathy. Ann Neurol. 1985;17:171–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsai TM, Tsai CL, Lin TS, Lin CC, Jou IM. Value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials in detecting acute nerve root injury: an experimental study with special emphasis on stimulus intensity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:E540–6.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kim DH, Zaremski J, Kwon B, Jenis L, Woodard E, Bode R, Banco RJ. Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:3041–6.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Resnick DK, Anderson PA, Kaiser MG, Groff MW, Heary RF, Holly LT, Mummaneni PV, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Matz PG. Electrophysiological monitoring during surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:245–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Operating Rooms, UCSF Hospitals, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Russ Lyon MS, DABNM

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UCSF, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Anthony Gibson MBBS & Shane Burch MD

  3. Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, Box 0648, Room L-008, 521 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0648, USA

    Jeremy Lieberman MD

Authors
  1. Russ Lyon MS, DABNM
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Gibson MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shane Burch MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeremy Lieberman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Lieberman MD.

Additional information

Lyon R, Gibson A, Burch S, Lieberman J. Increases in voltage may produce false-negatives when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lyon, R., Gibson, A., Burch, S. et al. Increases in voltage may produce false-negatives when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury. J Clin Monit Comput 24, 441–448 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-010-9269-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-010-9269-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation