A Guide to the Performance of Transcranial Electrical Motor Evoked Potentials. Part 1. Basic Concepts, Recording Parameters, Special Considerations, and Application

Retrospective Waveform Analysis of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials (MEP) to Identify Early Predictors of Impending Motor Deficits in Spinal Surgeries

PURPOSE

Although there are guidelines analyzing transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) waveform criteria, they vary widely and are not applied universally during intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM). The objective is to generate hypotheses to identify early and reliable MEP waveform characteristics prior to complete loss of MEP to predict impending motor spinal cord injuries during spinal surgeries. The ultimate goal is to enhance real-time feedback to prevent injury or detect reversible spinal cord damage.

METHODS

Fifteen true positive cases of persistent intraoperative MEP loss and new postoperative motor deficits were retrospectively identified from 2011 to 2013. Waveform characteristics of latency, amplitude, duration, phases, and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were measured, and an intraoperative spinal cord index (ISCI) was calculated for 5 traces prior to complete MEP loss. ISCI = [amplitude x duration x (phases+1) x AUC]/latency.

RESULTS

Out of 22 muscles in 15 cases, latency increased in 2, duration decreased in 12, amplitude decreased in 13, AUC decreased in 13, and ISCI decreased in 14. In 11 out of 15 cases (73%), ISCI dropped > 40% in at least one muscle before MEP were completely lost. Thirteen cases had concurrent somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) changes, 9 out of 13 had > 50% decrease in SSEP: 2 out of 9 changed before MEP, 5 out of 9 simultaneously, and 2 out of 9 after.

CONCLUSIONS

In these cases of motor injury, smaller and simpler MEP waveforms preceded complete loss of signal. An ISCI 40% drop could be tested as a warning threshold for impending motor compromise in future prospective studies and lead to eventual standardization to predict irreversible postoperative deficits.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Identifying Safety and Duration of Temporary Aneurysm Clipping Based on Vascular Territory, a Multimodal Strategy

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo clipping of cerebral aneurysms face an inherent risk for new postoperative neurologic deficits. Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) is used often for early detection of ischemic changes, while it is still potentially reversible. However, the value, safety, and efficacy of temporary clipping and multimodal IONM to minimize risks are debated. Our retrospective series examined the sensitivity and specificity of IONM using transcranial motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials and quantified the safety of temporary clipping by duration and vascular territory.

METHODS

Our prospectively collected database (2010-2013) included 123 consecutive patients who underwent clipping of 133 cerebral aneurysms with use of IONM. We determined postoperative deficit rate and sensitivity and specificity of monitoring to predict these changes intraoperatively. The rate of permanent deficit after temporary clipping was correlated with duration, vascular territory, and IONM findings.

RESULTS

Of 133 clipped aneurysms, 15 instances of IONM changes occurred, including 12 temporary without new postoperative deficit and 3 permanent with new postoperative deficit. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring predicted one of the permanent deficits and transcranial motor evoked potentials predicted the other 2 deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal IONM was highly specific and sensitive for detecting new deficits. Three patients with new deficits had temporary clipping, including 2 patients with IONM changes not temporally associated with clip placement. Our 1.1% rate of permanent neurologic deficit attributed to temporary clipping support its safety. Differences in patterns of IONM changes among vascular territories warrant further investigation.

How to make the best use of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring? Experience in 1162 consecutive spinal deformity surgical procedures

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study of 1162 consecutive patients who underwent spinal deformity surgical procedures at our spine center from January 2010 to December 2013.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and evaluate a protocol of intraoperative motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring with the warning criteria we had established on the basis of our clinical experiences and the review of previous literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Though MEPs monitoring have become widely used in spinal deformity surgery, different alarm criteria and response protocol used in different studies compromised their comparability; Furthermore, high false-positive rate of MEP reported by previous studies has become an increasingly prominent problem that will limit its clinical use and development.

METHODS

The intraoperative monitoring data of 1162 consecutive patients who underwent spinal deformity surgical procedures at our spine center were retrospectively analyzed. Age, sex, diagnosis, preoperative neurological status, intraspinal anomalies, baseline MEP, and MEP change were collected. The protocol with the warning criteria we had established was used. The false-positive rate, false-negative rate, and positive predictive value were calculated.

RESULTS

Significant intraoperative changes were seen in the MEP data in 52 (4.4%) of all the cases. In 25 cases among which, significant MEP changes were synchronously and logically associated with high-risk surgical maneuver (pedicle screw insertion, osteotomy, correction, etc.). The false-positive rate of MEP monitoring was 0.26% (3/1140), whereas the sensitivity and specificity of MEP for detection of clinically significant intraoperative cord injury were 100% and 99.7%, respectively. The positive predictive value of a MEP alert in terms of a new postoperative neurological deficit was 83.3%.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that the appropriate use of MEP monitoring based on our protocol is able to obtain satisfying sensitivity and specificity and thus provide important information for intraoperative decision making.

Alarm criteria for motor-evoked potentials: what's wrong with the "presence-or-absence" approach?

STUDY DESIGN

Combined prospective and retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate 2 published criteria for interpreting motor-evoked potentials (MEP) in response to repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation (rTES) during surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is controversy regarding how to interpret MEPs elicited by rTES. Many centers warn the surgical team only if the MEP is lost entirely ("Presence-or-Absence" method). Alternatively, we monitor the stimulus energy needed to elicit a minimal evoked EMG response; significant increases in this energy reflect impending motor tract injury and serve as the basis for warning the surgical team ("Threshold-Level" method).

METHODS

We documented target muscle thresholds for rTES throughout each subject's surgical procedure. The time (in hours) between intraoperative threshold change and (a) complete loss of response or (b) until the end of the surgical procedure was determined. Short-term postoperative motor status was documented by either direct physical examination or by chart review.

RESULTS

We enrolled 903 subjects, from whom intraoperative rTES-evoked responses could be elicited in 859 subjects. Of these, 93 subjects sustained intraoperative damage to central motor pathways. Significant increases in target muscle thresholds were often noted many minutes, and sometimes hours before complete signal loss. In other cases, thresholds increased significantly without ever losing the muscle response.

CONCLUSION

The Threshold-Level method is highly sensitive and specific to deterioration in central motor function, and provides early warning of such an event. Conversely, in some cases the Presence-or-Absence method may fail to detect episodes of partial loss, and in other cases typically introduces a delay between the times when motor dysfunction begins to occur and when the response is lost (at which time an alarm is triggered). We conclude that use of the Presence-or-Absence alarm criteria for interpreting MEPs during surgery is often incompatible with the requirement for accurate and early warning of impending injury to central motor pathways, and should be avoided.