Vol. 20 No. 3 (2016)
NEUROSURGERY

Some experience of neurophysiological monitoring in neurosurgery

PDF (Русский)
  • A Vasyatkina,
  • E Levin,
  • V Kobozev,
  • K Orlov
A Vasyatkina
Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Ministry of Health Care of Russian Federation, 630055 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Bio
E Levin
Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Ministry of Health Care of Russian Federation, 630055 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Bio
V Kobozev
Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Ministry of Health Care of Russian Federation, 630055 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Bio
K Orlov
Research Institute of Circulation Pathology, Ministry of Health Care of Russian Federation, 630055 Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21688/1681-3472-2016-3-108-117

Published 2016-11-10

Keywords

  • intraoperative neuromonitoring,
  • somatosensory evoked potentials,
  • motor evoked potentials,
  • electroencephalography,
  • electromyography

How to Cite

Vasyatkina, A., Levin, E., Kobozev, V., & Orlov, K. (2016). Some experience of neurophysiological monitoring in neurosurgery. Patologiya Krovoobrashcheniya I Kardiokhirurgiya, 20(3), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.21688/1681-3472-2016-3-108-117

Copyright (c) 2016 Vasyatkina A.G., Levin E.A., Kobozev V.V., Orlov K.Yu.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Aim. This retrospective study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy of neuromonitoring methods to prevent postoperative neurological complications and estimating predictive power of intraoperative changes in monitored characteristics.
Methods. 240 patients operated over a period from 2014 to 2015 underwent intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. 173 patients suffered from hemispheric lesions and 67 had lesions located in or near the brainstem. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) were monitored in 152 cases, visual – in 32, brainstem acoustic – in 22 and transcranial motor potentials were controlled in 36 cases. Stimulation mapping of motor cortex was performed in 69 surgeries and cranial nerves identification – in 27. The electrocorticogram was registered in 7 patients, with 3 of them undergoing intraoperative awakening for speech function mapping.
Results. The sensitivity of SSEP in detection of motor dysfunctions was low (33%), while the specificity tended to be relatively high (82%). These characteristics for visual and motor evoked potentials were close to 100% provided the parameters of the anesthesia met the relevant requirements. As for prevention of postoperative dysfunctions, the most effective methods were stimulation mapping of functionally significant areas (motor and speech ones) and motor pathways mapping.
Conclusion. Intraoperative neuromonitoring reduces the occurrence rate of neurological complications after neurosurgical operations. The SSEP method is not sensitive enough in surgeries that could affect motor centers and/or pathways, therefore, multimodal monitoring which combines SSEP and motor responses registration during transcranial and/or direct electrical brain stimulation is needed. Successful monitoring requires efficient cooperation of neurophysiologists, neurosurgeons and anesthesiologists.

Received 7 April 2016. Accepted 6 October 2016.

Funding: The study had no sponsorship.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

PDF (Русский)

References

  1. Gaytan AS, Krivoshapkin AL, Karaskov AM, Kanygin VV, Valentik AV. Results of surgical treatment of patients with glioblastomas using a combined 5-ala fluorescent-guided resection. Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya = Circulation Pathology and Cardiac Surgery. 2014;18(2):37-41. (In Russ.)
  2. Sala F, Manganotti P, Tramontano V, Bricolo A, Gerosa M. Monitoring of motor pathways during brain stem surgery: what we have achieved and what we still miss? Clinical Neurophysiology. 2007;37(6):399-406. DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2007.09.013
  3. Stecker MM. A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery. Surgical neurology international. 2012;3(Suppl 3):S174-87. DOI: 10.4103/2152-7806.98579
  4. Legatt AD. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs) and intraoperative BAEP monitoring. In: Vertigo and Imbalance: Clinical Neurophysiology of the Vestibular System. Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology. Vol. 9. Elsevier Science Ltd; 2009. pp. 282-302.
  5. Banoub M, Tetzlaff JE, Schubert A. Pharmacologic and Physiologic Influences Affecting Sensory Evoked Potentials: Implications for Perioperative Monitoring. Anesthesiology. 2003;99(3):716-37.
  6. Bejjani GK, Nora PC, Vera PL, Broemling L, Sekhar LN. The Predictive Value of Intraoperative Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring: Review of 244 Procedures. Neurosurgery. 1998;43(3):491-8.
  7. Koht A, Toleikis JR, Sloan TB. Standards for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. In: Neurologic Outcomes of Surgery and Anesthesia. Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 113-28.
  8. Motoyama Y, Kawaguchi M, Yamada S, Nakagawa I, Nishimura F, Hironaka Y, Park YS, Hayashi H, Abe R, Nakase H. Evaluation of combined use of transcranial and direct cortical motor evoked potential monitoring during unruptured aneurysm surgery. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2011;51(1):15-22.
  9. Kombos T, Suess O, Ciklatekerlio O, Brock M. Monitoring of intraoperative motor evoked potentials to increase the safety of surgery in and around the motor cortex. Journal of neurosurgery. 2001;95(4):608-14.
  10. Lee CM. Train-of-4 quantitation of competitive neuromuscular block. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1975;54(5):649-53.
  11. Kodama K, Goto T, Sato A, Sakai K, Tanaka Y, Hongo K. Standard and limitation of intraoperative monitoring of the visual evoked potential. Acta neurochirurgica. 2010;152(4):643-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00701-010-0600-2
  12. Houlden DA, Turgeon CA, Polis T, Sinclair J, Coupland S, Bourque P, Corsten M, Kassam A. Intraoperative flash VEPs are reproducible in the presence of low amplitude EEG. Journal of clinical monitoring and computing. 2014;28(3):275-85. DOI: 10.1007/s10877-013-9532-8
  13. Makela K, Hartikainen K, Rorarius M, Jäntti V. Suppression of F-VEP during isoflurane-induced EEG suppression. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 1996;100(3):269-72.