Skip to main content

A comparison of the effects of desflurane versus propofol on transcranial motor-evoked potentials in pediatric patients

Child's Nervous System volume 30, pages 2103–2108 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim was to compare the effects of propofol and desflurane anesthesia on transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from pediatric patients undergoing surgery for spinal deformities.

Methods

Desflurane and propofol cohorts (25 patients each) were obtained retrospectively and matched for patient characteristics and surgical approach. MEPs from the thenar eminence and abductor hallucis were compared during maintenance anesthesia on desflurane (0.6–0.8 MAC) or propofol infusion (150–300 μg/kg/min). MEP amplitudes and durations were obtained for successive 30-min intervals for 150 min, beginning 60 min after maintenance anesthesia.

Results

Mean peak to peak amplitudes of MEPs under desflurane anesthesia from the thenar eminence (419 μV) and abductor hallucis (386 μv) were not significantly different from those under propofol (608 μV, 343 μV, thenar, and abductor hallucis, respectively). Stimulation was greater by 42 V and 136 mA, and trains were slightly longer in the desflurane compared to the propofol group (p < 0.05). Most MEP amplitudes for the desflurane and propofol cohorts remained the same or increased (71 % of cases) when those after 150 min were compared to those in the first 30-min interval.

Conclusions

MEPs with good amplitudes were obtained under desflurane only anesthesia that were comparable to propofol only anesthesia in pediatric patients during surgery for spinal deformities. There was no evidence for anesthetic fade over the time period examined. When used by itself, desflurane can be considered a viable alternative to propofol anesthesia.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Chen Z (2004) The effects of isoflurane and propofol on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 18:303–308

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Clapcich AJ, Emerson RG, Roye DP et al (2004) The effects of propofol, small-dose isoflurane, and nitrous oxide on cortical somatosensory evoked potential and bispectral index monitoring in adolescents undergoing spinal fusion. Anesth Analg 99:1334–1340

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Deiner SG, Kwatra SG, Lin H, Weisz DJ (2010) Patient characteristics and anesthetic technique are additive but not synergistic predictors of successful motor evoked potential monitoring. Anesth Analg 111:421–426

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jellinek D, Platt M, Jewkes D, Symon L (1991) Effects of nitrous oxide on motor evoked potentials recorded from skeletal muscle in patients under total anesthesia with intravenously administered propofol. Neurosurgery 29:558–562

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kunisawa T, Nagata O, Nomura M, Iwasaki H, Ozaki M (2004) A comparison of the absolute amplitude of motor evoked potentials among groups of patients with various concentrations of nitrous oxide. J Anesth 18:181–184

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, Diab M, Gregory GA (2006) The effect of age on motor evoked potentials in children under propofol/isoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg 103:316–321

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu HY, Zeng HY, Cheng H, Wang MR, Qiao H, Han RQ (2012) Comparison of the effects of etomidate and propofol combined with remifentanil and guided by comparable BIS on transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials during spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 24:133–138

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lo YL, Dan YF, Tan YE, Nurjannah S, Tan SB, Tan CT, Raman S (2004) Intra-operative monitoring in scoliosis surgery with multi-pulse cortical stimuli and desflurane anesthesia. Spinal Cord 42:342–345

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lo YL, Dan YF, Tan YE, Nurjannah S, Tan SB, Tan CT, Raman S (2006) Intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring in scoliosis surgery: comparison of desflurane/nitrous oxide with propofol total intravenous anesthetic regimens. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 18:211–214

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lyon R, Feiner J, Lieberman JA (2005) Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of "anesthetic fade". J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 17:13–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C (2013) Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 124:2291–2316

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nathan N, Tabaraud F, Lacroix F, Mouliès D, Viviand X, Lansade A, Terrier G, Feiss P (2003) Influence of propofol concentrations on multipulse transcranial motor evoked potentials. Br J Anaesth 91:493–497

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pechstein U, Cedzich C, Nadstawek J, Schramm J (1996) Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia. Neurosurgery 39:335–344

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pelosi L, Stevenson M, Hobbs GJ, Jardine A, Webb JK (2001) Intraoperative motor evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation during two anaesthetic regimens. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1076–1087

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schindler E, Müller M, Zickmann B, Osmer C, Wozniak G, Hempelmann G (1998) Modulation of somatosensory evoked potentials under various concentrations of desflurane with and without nitrous oxide. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 10:218–223

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shida Y, Shida C, Hiratsuka N, Kaji K, Ogata J (2012) High-frequency stimulation restored motor-evoked potentials to the baseline level in the upper extremities but not in the lower extremities under sevoflurane anesthesia in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 24:113–120

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sloan TB, Janik D, Jameson L (2008) Multimodality monitoring of the central nervous system using motor-evoked potentials. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 21:560–564

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sloan TB, Heyer EJ (2002) Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19:430–443

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sloan T (2010) Anesthesia and intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in children. Childs Nerv Syst 26:227–235

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tamkus AA, Rice K, Kim HL (2014) Differential rates of false-positive findings in transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring when using inhalational anesthesia versus total intravenous anesthesia during spine surgeries. Spine J. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.037

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vaughan DJA (2001) Effects of different concentrations of sevoflurane and desflurane on subcortical somatosensory evoked responses in anaesthetized, non-stimulated patients. Br J Anaesth 86:59–62

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhang JLW (2005) Effects of volatile anesthetics on cortical somatosensory evoked potential and bispectral index. Chung-Hua I Hsueh Tsa Chih 85:2700–2703

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA 98105, USA

    Corrie Anderson

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, 325-9th Ave, Box 359740, Seattle, WA, 98104-2499, USA

    Robert N. Holdefer, Michele Furman, Yoro Sangare & Jefferson C. Slimp

Authors
  1. Robert N. Holdefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Corrie Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele Furman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoro Sangare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jefferson C. Slimp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jefferson C. Slimp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holdefer, R.N., Anderson, C., Furman, M. et al. A comparison of the effects of desflurane versus propofol on transcranial motor-evoked potentials in pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst 30, 2103–2108 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-014-2510-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-014-2510-8

Keywords

  • Transcranial motor evoked potentials
  • Desflurane
  • Propofol
  • Anesthetic fade
  • Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
  • Spinal deformity