Predictive value of neurophysiologic monitoring during neurovascular intervention for postoperative new neurologic deficits
Forms of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM), including somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs), have been widely used in the field of neurosurgery. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IONM in identifying intraoperative events and predicting postoperative neurologic deficits in neurovascular intervention.
From January 2013 to December 2016, we retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent neurovascular intervention under general anesthesia with the use of IONM. Associations between significant changes in MEPs or SSEPs which were defined as a decrease more than 50% in amplitude and/or an increase more than 10% in latency and any identifiable intraoperative events and/or postoperative neurologic deficits were determined. The sensitivity and specificity values for both MEPs and SSEPs were calculated.
In total, 578 patients (175 men and 403 women) were included. Their mean age was 59.5 years. SSEP changes occurred in 1% (n = 6), and MEP changes occurred in 1.2% (n = 7). Four patients suffered postoperative neurologic deficits, and identifiable intraoperative events were observed in seven patients. Both SSEP and MEP changes were significantly associated with identifiable intraoperative events and/or postoperative neurologic deficits (p < 0.001, Fisher’s exact test). The calculated sensitivity and specificity of MEP monitoring were 50 and 99.5%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of SSEP monitoring were both 100%.
Intraoperative SSEP monitoring might be a reliable and sensitive method to surveil neurologic complications during neurovascular intervention. Intraoperative MEP monitoring appears to be feasible. However, it is unclear whether MEP monitoring has any additive benefit over SSEP monitoring.
KeywordsEndovascular surgery Neurophysiologic monitoring Intraoperative monitoring Somatosensory evoked potential Motor evoked potential
Compliance with ethical standards
No funding was received for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
For this type of retrospective study formal consent is not required.
- 3.Horiuchi K, Suzuki K, Sasaki T, Matsumoto M, Sakuma J, Konno Y, Oinuma M, Itakura T, Kodama N (2005) Intraoperative monitoring of blood flow insufficiency during surgery of middle cerebral artery aneurysms. J Neurosurg 103(2):275–283. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2005.103.2.0275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Irie T, Yoshitani K, Ohnishi Y, Shinzawa M, Miura N, Kusaka Y, Miyazaki S, Miyamoto S (2010) The efficacy of motor-evoked potentials on cerebral aneurysm surgery and new-onset postoperative motor deficits. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 22(3):247–251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0b013e3181de4eae CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Motoyama Y, Kawaguchi M, Yamada S, Nakagawa I, Nishimura F, Hironaka Y, Park YS, Hayashi H, Abe R, Nakase H (2011) Evaluation of combined use of transcranial and direct cortical motor evoked potential monitoring during unruptured aneurysm surgery. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 51(1):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Nwachuku EL, Balzer JR, Yabes JG, Habeych ME, Crammond DJ, Thirumala PD (2015) Diagnostic value of somatosensory evoked potential changes during carotid endarterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 72(1):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Liu AY, Lopez JR, Do HM, Steinberg GK, Cockroft K, Marks MP (2003) Neurophysiological monitoring in the endovascular therapy of aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24(8):1520–1527Google Scholar
- 19.Phillips JL, Chalouhi N, Jabbour P, Starke RM, Bovenzi CD, Rosenwasser RH, Wilent WB, Romo VM, Tjoumakaris SI (2014) Somatosensory evoked potential changes in neuroendovascular procedures: incidence and association with clinical outcome in 873 patients. Neurosurgery 75(5):560–567; discussion 566-567; quiz 567. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000000510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Adhikari RB, Takeda M, Kolakshyapati M, Sakamoto S, Morishige M, Kiura Y, Okazaki T, Shinagawa K, Ichinose N, Yamaguchi S, Kurisu K (2016) Somatosensory evoked potentials in carotid artery stenting: effectiveness in ascertaining cerebral ischemic events. J Clin Neurosci 30:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ares WJ, Grandhi RM, Panczykowski DM, Weiner GM, Thirumala P, Habeych ME, Crammond DJ, Horowitz MB, Jankowitz BT, Jadhav A, Jovin TG, Ducruet AF, Balzer J (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating neurological complications during endovascular aneurysm treatment. Operative neurosurgery, Hagerstown. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opx104 Google Scholar
- 23.Horowitz MB, Crammond D, Balzer J, Jungreis C, Kassam AB (2003) Aneurysm rupture during endovascular coiling: effects on cerebral transit time and neurophysiologic monitoring and the benefits of early ventriculostomy: case report. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 46(5):300–305. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2003-44446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar