Advertisement

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 107–111 | Cite as

Alternative anterior reference sites for measuring posterior tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials

  • John F. Bebawy
  • Dhanesh K. Gupta
  • Matthew A. Cotton
  • Katherine S. Gil
  • Edward B. Fohrman
  • Srdjan Mirkovic
  • Antoun KohtEmail author
Article
  • 75 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to examine the utility and feasibility of using alternative anterior reference leads when measuring left posterior tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs).

Methods

With IRB approval, 12 patients were monitored using both traditional (FPz and C4′) and alternative anterior (F3 and F4) reference leads during routine spine surgery with SEP monitoring. Recordings from the routine and novel electrode pairs were collected and analyzed.

Results

All of the SEP amplitudes measured were of similar magnitude except for that of F3–F4, which was significantly lower (P < 0.001) than all of the other five lead combinations which were assessed (Cz′–FPz, C3′–C4′, C3′–F4, Cz′–F3, and Cz′–F4). The latencies of the novel lead combinations (C3′–F4, Cz′–F3, Cz′–F4, and F3–F4) were similar to those of the “gold standards” (Cz′–FPz and C3′–C4′) (pooled median, 45.6 ms with 25–75th percentiles, 44.0–47.8 ms, P = 0.308). The coefficients of variation (CV %) of the amplitudes were not statistically significantly different (P = 0.341).

Conclusions

The use of alternative frontal reference leads (F3 and F4) for left posterior tibial nerve SEP monitoring yields signals of equal quality and reproducibility compared to signals with standard (FPz and C4′) referencing. These alternative leads may substitute for traditional referencing when placement of FPz or C4′ is precluded by the location of surgery.

Keywords

neuromonitoring evoked potentials neurophysiology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jasper HH. The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1958;10:371–5.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desmedt JE, Cheron G. Non-cephalic reference recording of early somatosensory potentials to finger stimulation in adult or aging normal man: differentiation of widespread N18 and contra-lateral N20 from the prerolandic P22 and N30 components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1981;52:553–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Stigsby B. Tibial somatosensory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring: Recommendations based on signal to noise ratio analysis of popliteal fossa, optimized P37, standard P37 and P31 potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;116(8):1858–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MacDonald DB. Individually optimizing posterior tibial somatosensory evoked potential P37 scalp derivations for intraoperative monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2001;18(4):364–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miura T, Sonoo M, Shimizu T. Establishment of standard values for the latency, interval and amplitude parameters of tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114(7):1367–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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(2):194–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seitz RJ, Höflich P, Binkofski F, Tellman L, Herzog H, Freund HJ. Role of the premotor cortex in recovery from middle cerebral artery infarction. Arch Neurol. 1998;55:1081–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sloan TB, Heyer EJ. Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19(5):430–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banoub M, Tetzlaff JE, Schubert A. Pharmacologic and physiologic influences affecting sensory evoked potentials: implications for perioperative monitoring. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(3):716–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernard JM, Pereon Y, Fayet G, Guiheneuc P. Effects of isoflurane and desflurane on neurogenic motor- and somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring for scoliosis surgery. Anesthesiology. 1996;85(5):1013–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bejjani G, Nora P, Vera P, Broemling L, Sekhar L. The predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring: review of 244 procedures. Neurosurgery. 1998;43:491–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacDonald DB, Stigsby B, Al-Zayed Z. A comparison between derivation optimization and Cz0-FPz for posterior tibial P37 somatosensory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115:1925–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John F. Bebawy
    • 1
  • Dhanesh K. Gupta
    • 2
  • Matthew A. Cotton
    • 3
  • Katherine S. Gil
    • 2
  • Edward B. Fohrman
    • 1
  • Srdjan Mirkovic
    • 4
  • Antoun Koht
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Anesthesiology and Neurological SurgeryNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring, Department of NeurologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Orthopedic SurgeryNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Departments of Anesthesiology, Neurological Surgery, and NeurologyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of MedicineChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations