Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy and safety of novel high-frequency multi-train stimulation for recording transcranial motor evoked potentials in a rat model

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

Abstract

Recently, low-frequency multi-train stimulation (MTS) was shown to effectively enhance transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs). In contrast, high- frequency double-train stimulation was reported to elicit a marked facilitation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of high-frequency MTS in the augmentation of potentials. In addition, we investigated the safety of high-frequency MTS, behaviorally and histologically. TcMEPs were recorded from the triceps surae muscle in 38 rats. A multipulse stimulus was delivered repeatedly at different rates (2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 Hz), and was defined as MTS. A conditioned taste aversion method was used to investigate the effect of high-frequency MTS on learning and memory function. Subsequently, animals were sacrificed, and the brains were removed and examined using the standard hematoxylin-eosin method. Compared with conventional single train stimulation, TcMEP amplitudes increased 1.3, 2.1, 1.9, and 2.0 times on average with 5, 10, 20, and 50 Hz stimulation, respectively. The aversion index was >0.8 in all animals after they received 100 high-frequency MTSs. Histologically, no pathological changes were evident in the rat brains. High-frequency MTS shows potential to effectively enhance TcMEP responses, and to be used safely in transcranial brain stimulation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kothbauer K, Deletis V, Epstein FJ. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for intramedullary surgery: an essential adjunct. Pediatr Neurosurg. 1997;26:247–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cioni B, Meglio M, Rossi GF. Intraoperative motor evoked potentials monitoring in spinal neurosurgery. Arch Ital Biol. 1999;137:115–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Meylaerts SA, Jacobs MJ, van Iterson V, De Haan P, Kalkman CJ. Comparison of transcranial motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Surg. 1999;230:742–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kombos T, Suess O, Ciklatekerlio O, Brock M. Monitoring of intraoperative motor evoked potentials to increase the safety of surgery in and around the motor cortex. J Neurosurg. 2001;95:608–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hilibrand AS, Schwartz DM, Sethuraman V, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1248–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sakaki K, Kawabata S, Ukegawa D, Hirai T, Ishii S, Tomori M, et al. Warning thresholds on the basis of origin of amplitude changes in transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine. 2012;37:E913–21 (Phila Pa 1976).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, Wakao N, Ando K, Tauchi R, et al. The cutoff amplitude of transcranial motor-evoked potentials for predicting postoperative motor deficits in thoracic spine surgery. Spine. 2013;38:E21–7 (Phila Pa 1976).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Woodforth IJ, Hicks RG, Crawford MR, Stephen JP, Burke DJ. Variability of motor-evoked potentials recording during nitrous oxide anesthesia from the tibialis anterior muscle after transcranial electrical stimulation. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:744–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tsutsui S, Yamada H, Hashizume H, Minamide A, Nakagawa Y, Iwasaki H, et al. Quantification of the proportion of motor neurons recruited by transcranial electrical stimulation during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Monit Comput. 2013;27:633–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andersson G, Ohlin A. Spatial facilitation of motor evoked responses in monitoring during spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110:720–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Journée HL, Polak HE, de Kleuver M, Langeloo DD, Postma AA. Improved neuromonitoring during spinal surgery using doubletrain transcranial electrical stimulation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2004;42:110–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kakimoto M, Kawaguchi M, Yamamoto Y, Inoue S, Horiuchi T, Nakase H, et al. Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve before transcranial electrical stimulation can enlarge amplitudes of myogenic motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 2005;102:733–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Frei FJ, Ryhult SE, Duitmann E, Hasler CC, Luetschg J, Erb TO. Intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials in children undergoing spinal surgery. Spine. 2007;32:911–7 (Phila Pa 1976).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayashi H, Kawaguchi M, Yamamoto Y, Inoue S, Koizumi M, Ueda Y, et al. Evaluation of reliability of posttetanic motor evoked potential monitoring during spinal surgery under general anesthesia. Spine. 2008;33:E994–1000 (Phila Pa 1976).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deletis V. Intraoperative neurophysiology and methodologies used to monitor the functional integrity of the motor system. In: Deletis V, Shils JL, editors. Neurophysiology in neurosurgery. New York: Academic Press; 2002. p. 25–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 (Phila Pa 1976).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Al Saddigi A. Four-limb muscle motor evoked potential and optimized somatosensory evoked potential monitoring with decussation assessment: results in 206 thoracolumbar spine surgeries. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(Suppl 2):171–87.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Deletis V, Sala F. Corticospinal tract monitoring with D- and I-waves from the spinal cord and muscle MEPs from limb muscles. In: Nuwer MR, editor. Intraoperative monitoring of neural function. Handbook of clinical neurophysiology, vol. 8. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 235–51.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. MacDonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—a position statement by the American society of neurophysiological monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;124:2291–316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tsutsui S, Iwasaki H, Yamada H, Hashizume H, Minamide A, Nakagawa Y, et al. Augmentation of motor evoked potentials using multi-train transcranial stimulation in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:35–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MacDonald DB. Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19:416–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chambers KC. A neural model for conditioned taste aversions. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1990;13:373–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bures J, Bermudez-Rattoni F, Yamamoto T, editors. Conditioned taste aversion: memory of special kind. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barker LM, Best MR, Domjam M. Learning Mechanisms in Food Selection. Waco: Baylor University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shaw N. Disruption of conditioned taste aversion: evidence that ECS weakens the gustatory engram. Behav Neural Biol. 1988;49:302–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. King JW, Yarita M, Yamamoto T, Matsumiya Y. Memory for conditioned taste aversion is diminished by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Physiol Behav. 1990;48:713–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Alstermark B, Isa T, Okki Y, Saito Y. Disynaptic pyramidal excitation in forelimb motoneurons mediated via C3–C4 propriospinal neurons in the Macaca fuscata. J Neurophysiol. 1999;82:3580–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alstermark B, Ogawa J, Isa T. Lack of monosynaptic corticomotoneuronal EPSPs in rats: disynaptic EPSPs mediated via reticulospinal neurons and polysynaptic EPSPs via segmental interneurons. J Neurophysiol. 2004;91:1832–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation. Brain. 1937;60:339–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Marangell LB, Silver JM, Yudofsky SC. Psychopharmacology and electroconvulsive therapy. In: Hales RE, Yudofsky SC, Talbot JA, editors. The American psychiatric press textbook of psychiatry. 3rd ed. American psychiatric press; 1999. p. 1025–9.

  33. Wasserman EM. Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998;108:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stenberg J, Levy D, Zangen A. Impairment of aversive memory reconsolidation by localized intracranial electrical stimulation. Eur J Neurosci. 2009;29:964–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hemmer LB, Zeeni C, Bebawy JF, Bendok BR, Cotton MA, Shah NB, et al. The incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for anuerysm clipping. World Neurosurg. 2014;81:99–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI; 26462248).

Funding

This study was funded by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research in the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI; 26462248).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan

    Tsuyoshi Deguchi, Shunji Tsutsui, Hiroki Iwahashi, Yukihiro Nakagawa & Munehito Yoshida

Authors
  1. Tsuyoshi Deguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shunji Tsutsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroki Iwahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yukihiro Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Munehito Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shunji Tsutsui.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All applicable international, national, and institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deguchi, T., Tsutsui, S., Iwahashi, H. et al. Efficacy and safety of novel high-frequency multi-train stimulation for recording transcranial motor evoked potentials in a rat model. J Clin Monit Comput 31, 1053–1058 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9930-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-016-9930-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation