Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1594–1599 | Cite as

Compound Muscle Action Potentials and Spontaneous Electromyography Can be Used to Identify and Protect the Femoral Nerve During Resection of Large Retroperitoneal Tumors

  • Lanjun Guo
  • John Patrick ClarkIII
  • Robert S. Warren
  • Eric K. Nakakura
Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Abstract

Background

Resection of large retroperitoneal neoplasms may injure the femoral nerve, thereby causing a permanent neurological deficit. We used electrical neurophysiological monitoring to identify, map, and preserve the femoral nerve during surgical resection to reduce the risk of neurological deficit.

Methods

Seven patients with retroperitoneal neoplasms underwent eight resections.

Compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) were recorded from needle electrodes placed in the iliacus, quadriceps, and sartorius muscles. Spontaneous electromyography (EMG) was contnuously monitored from the same muscle groups. A handheld monopolar stimulator was used to elicit evoked EMG responses to identify and map the course of the femoral nerve. A stimulating strength of 10 mA was used to map the nerve. The stimulation threshold was tested after neoplasm resection to predict postoperative femoral nerve function.

Results

Electrical stimulation with CMAP recording and a stimulating strength of 10 mA successfully localized the femoral nerve in six cases. Monitoring with a stimulating threshold between 0.6 and 1.6 mA predicted postoperative femoral nerve preservation after tumor resection in four of the six cases.

Conclusion

Neurophysiological monitoring using CMAP and spontaneous EMG can protect the femoral nerve during resection of large retroperitoneal neoplasms.

Keywords

Retroperitoneal sarcoma Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring Femoral nerve Electrical stimulation Electromyography 

References

  1. 1.
    Erzen D, Sencar M, Novak J. Retroperitoneal sarcoma: 25 years of experience with aggressive surgical treatment at the Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana. J Surg Oncol 2005; 91:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heslin MJ, Lewis JJ, Nadler E, et al. Prognostic factors associated with long-term survival for retroperitoneal sarcoma: Implications for management. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15:2832–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alldinger I, Yang Q, Pilarsky C, et al. Retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas: Prognosis and treatment of primary and recurrent disease in 117 patients. Anticancer Res 2006; 26:1577–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradley JC, Caplan R. Giant retroperitoneal sarcoma: A case report and review of the management of retroperitoneal sarcomas. Am Surg 2002; 68:52–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis JJ, Leung D, Woodruff JM, et al. Retroperitoneal soft-tissue sarcoma: Analysis of 500 patients treated and followed at a single institution. Ann Surg 1998; 228:355–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lawrence W Jr. Operative management of soft tissue sarcomas: impact of anatomic site. Semin Surg Oncol 1994; 10:340–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Coevorden F, van Geel AN, Hoekstra HJ, et al. Dutch Soft Tissue Sarcoma Group. Long-term prognosis of primary retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33:234–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shafir M, Holland JF, Cohen B, et al. Radical retroperitoneal tumor surgery with resection of the psoas major muscle. Cancer 1985; 56:929–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    James HE, Mulcahy JJ, Walsh JW, et al. Use of anal sphincter electromyography during operations on the conus medullaris and sacral nerve roots. Neurosurgery 1979; 4:521–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kothbauer K, Schmid UD, Seiler RW, et al. Intraoperative motor and sensory monitoring of the cauda equina. Neurosurgery 1994; 34:702–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Legatt AD, Schroeder CE, Gill B, et al. Electrical stimulation and multichannel EMG recording for identification of functional neural tissue during cauda equina surgery. Childs Nerv Syst 1992; 8:185–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillips LH II, Park TS. Electrophysiological monitoring during lipomyelomeningocele resection. Muscle Nerve 1990; 13:127–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaiho Y, Nakagawa H, Ito A, Satoh M, et al. Ipsilateral seminal emission generated by electrostimulation of the lumbar sympathetic nerve during nerve sparing laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. J Urol 2004; 172:928–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Recker F, Tscholl R. Monitoring of emission as direct intraoperative control for nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. J Urol 1993; 150:1360–4. .PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wahle GR, Foster RS, Bihrle R, et al. Nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy after primary chemotherapy for metastatic testicular carcinoma. J Urol 1994; 152:428–30. .PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo L, Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Yingling CD, et al. Continuous EMG recordings and intraoperative electrical stimulation for identification and protection of cervical nerve roots during foraminal tumor surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lanjun Guo
    • 1
  • John Patrick ClarkIII
    • 1
  • Robert S. Warren
    • 2
  • Eric K. Nakakura
    • 2
  1. 1.Neurophysiological Monitoring ServiceUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical OncologyUniversity of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations