Preservation of motor maps with increased motor evoked potential amplitude threshold in RMT determination

  • Giuseppe Lucente
  • Steven Lam
  • Heike Schneider
  • Thomas Picht
Technical Note - Brain Tumors
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

Non-invasive pre-surgical mapping of eloquent brain areas with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is a useful technique linked to the improvement of surgical planning and patient outcomes. The stimulator output intensity and subsequent resting motor threshold determination (rMT) are based on the motor-evoked potential (MEP) elicited in the target muscle with an amplitude above a predetermined threshold of 50 μV. However, a subset of patients is unable to achieve complete relaxation in the target muscles, resulting in false positives that jeopardize mapping validity with conventional MEP determination protocols. Our aim is to explore the feasibility and reproducibility of a novel mapping approach that investigates how an increase of the MEP amplitude threshold to 300 and 500 μV affects subsequent motor maps.

Materials and methods

Seven healthy subjects underwent motor mapping with nTMS. RMT was calculated with the conventional methodology in conjunction with experimental 300- and 500-μV MEP amplitude thresholds. Motor mapping was performed with 105% of rMT stimulator intensity using the FDI as the target muscle.

Results

Motor mapping was possible in all patients with both the conventional and experimental setups. Motor area maps with a conventional 50-μV threshold showed poor correlation with 300-μV (α = 0.446, p < 0.001) maps, but showed excellent consistency with 500-μV motor area maps (α = 0.974, p < 0.001). MEP latencies were significantly less variable (23 ms for 50 μV vs. 23.7 ms for 300 μV vs. 23.7 ms for 500 μV, p < 0.001). A slight but significant increase of the electric field (EF) value was found (EF: 60.8 V/m vs. 64.8 V/m vs. 66 V/m p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of increasing the MEP detection threshold to 500 μV in rMT determination and motor area mapping with nTMS without losing precision.

Keywords

nTMS Motor mapping Resting motor threshold Latencies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research of Giuseppe Lucente is supported by a Rio Hortega contract (ISCIII CM16/00016 and FEDER).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures were performed in accordance with ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

TP has served as a speaker for NexStim Oy. GL, HS and SL declare that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Awiszus F (2003) TMS and threshold hunting. Suppl Clin Neurophysiol 56:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-424X(09)70205-3
  2. 2.
    Christie A, Fling B, Crews RT, Mulwitz LA, Kamen G (2007) Reliability of motor-evoked potentials in the ADM muscle of older adults. J Neurosci Methods 164(2):320–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ding D, Starke RM, Liu KC, Crowley RW (2015) Cortical plasticity in patients with cerebral arteriovenous malformations. J Clin Neurosci 22(12):1857–1861CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duffau H (2005) Lessons from brain mapping in surgery for low-grade glioma: insights into associations between tumour and brain plasticity. Lancet Neurol 4(8):476–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duffau H (2014) The huge plastic potential of adult brain and the role of connectomics: new insights provided by serial mappings in glioma surgery. Cortex 58:325–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hashemirad F, Zoghi M, Fitzgerald PB, Jaberzadeh S (2017) Reliability of motor evoked potentials induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation: the effects of initial motor evoked potentials removal. Basic Clin Neurosci 8(1):43–50PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jussen D, Zdunczyk A, Rösler J, Brandt S, Picht T (2016) Neurology 87(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000002802
  8. 8.
    Kallioniemi E, Pitkänen M, Säisänen L, Julkunen P (2015) Onset latency of motor evoked potentials in motor cortical mapping with Neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Open Neurol Journal 9:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krieg SM, Sabih J, Bulubasova L, Obermueller T, Negwer C, Janssen I, Shiban E, Meyer B, Ringel F (2014) Preoperative motor mapping by navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation improves outcome for motor eloquent lesions. Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nou007
  10. 10.
    Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A et al (2014) Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 125(11):2150–2206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lefaucheur J, Picht T (2016) The value of preoperative functional cortical mapping using navigated TMS Intérêt de la cartographie corticale fonctionnelle. Clin Neurophysiol 46(2):1–9Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu H, Au-yeung SSY (2014) Journal of the neurological sciences reliability of transcranial magnetic stimulation induced corticomotor excitability measurements for a hand muscle in healthy and chronic stroke subjects. J Neurol Sci 341(1–2):105–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    López-Alonso V, Cheeran B, Río-Rodríguez D, Fernández-Del-Olmo M, Davies CH (2008) Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms. Brain Stimul 7(3):372–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Picht T, Schmidt S, Brandt S, Frey D, Hannula H, Neuvonen T, Karhu J, Vajkoczy P, Suess O (2011) Preoperative functional mapping for Rolandic brain tumor surgery: comparison of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation to direct cortical stimulation. Neurosurgery 69(3):581–589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosenstock T, Grittner U, Acker G, Schwarzer V, Kulchytska N, Vajkoczy P, Picht T (2017) Risk stratification in motor area–related glioma surgery based on navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation data. J Neurosurg 126(4):1227–1237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rösler J, Niraula B, Strack V et al (2014) Language mapping in healthy volunteers and brain tumor patients with a novel navigated TMS system: evidence of tumor-induced plasticity. Clin Neurophysiol 125(3):526–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossini PM, Burke D, Chen R et al (2015) Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an IFCN Committee. Clin Neurophysiol 126(6):1071–1107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Säisänen L, Pirinen E, Teitti S, Könönen M, Julkunen P, Määttä S, Karhu J (2008) Factors influencing cortical silent period: optimized stimulus location, intensity and muscle contraction. J Neurosci Methods 169(1):231–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schmidt S, Bathe-peters R, Fleischmann R, Scholz M, Brandt SA, Maria R (2015) Nonphysiological factors in navigated TMS studies; confounding covariates and valid intracortical estimates. Hum Brain Mapp 49:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22611
  20. 20.
    Sollmann N, Tanigawa N, Bulubas L, Sabih J, Zimmer C, Ringel F, Meyer B, Krieg SM (2017) Clinical factors underlying the inter-individual variability of the resting motor threshold in navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping. Brain Topogr 30(1):98–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Troni W, Melillo F, Bertolotto A, Malucchi S, Capobianco M, Sperli F, Di Sapio A (2016) Normative values for intertrial variability of motor responses to nerve root and transcranial stimulation: a condition for follow-up studies in individual subjects. PLoS One 11(5):e0155268CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiss C, Nettekoven C, Rehme AK, Neuschmelting V, Eisenbeis A, Goldbrunner R, Grefkes C (2013) NeuroImage mapping the hand, foot and face representations in the primary motor cortex—retest reliability of neuronavigated TMS versus functional MRI. NeuroImage 66:531–542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu L, Goto Y, Taniwaki T, Kinukawa N, Tobimatsu S (2002) Different patterns of excitation and inhibition of the small hand and forearm muscles from magnetic brain stimulation in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 113(8):1286–1294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neuroscience DepartmentHospital Universitari Germans Trias I PujolBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgeryCharité Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations