Evaluation of Posttetanic Motor Evoked Potentials—The Influences of Repetitive Use, the Residual Effects of Tetanic Stimulation to Peripheral Nerve, and the Variability

Facilitation of motor evoked potentials after tetanic peripheral nerve stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Tetanic stimulation of a peripheral nerve prior to transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) may enhance motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the post-tetanic MEP (p-MEP) technique in improving MEP amplitudes.

METHODS

Conventional TES MEPs (c-MEP) and p-MEPs with left upper limb stimulation (p-MEPUL) or left lower limb stimulation (p-MEPLL) were performed in 26 patients. Bilateral hand and foot MEP amplitudes obtained with each protocol were compared. Subgroup comparisons were performed for myelopathy and peripheral neuropathy patients. Within-subject amplitude differences between c-MEP and each p-MEP technique were compared using a Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 52.7 years (range, 12-79 years). Overall, p-MEPUL resulted in MEP improvement in 25 of 26 (96%) patients, and p-MEPLL improved MEPs in 19 of 26 (73%) patients. The increase in MEP amplitudes were statistically significant in all muscle groups except left foot. Similar improvements were seen in the myelopathy group; in the neuropathy group, p-MEPUL produced similar results, but p-MEPLL did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The p-MEP technique can improve MEP amplitudes, including in patients with myelopathy. In patients with peripheral neuropathy, the results were mixed.

SIGNIFICANCE

Tetanic stimulation can enhance intraoperative MEP amplitudes.

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve augments motor evoked potentials by re-exciting spinal anterior horn cells

Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve, immediately prior to conducting transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (TES-MEP), increases MEP amplitudes in both innervated and uninnervated muscles by the stimulated peripheral nerve; this is known as the remote augmentation of MEPs. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying the remote augmentation of MEPs remain unclear. Although one hypothesis was that remote augmentation of MEPs results from increased motoneuronal excitability at the spinal cord level, the effect of spinal anterior horn cells has not yet been investigated. We aimed to investigate the effect of tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve on spinal cord anterior horn cells by analyzing the F-wave. We included 34 patients who underwent elective spinal surgeries and compared the changes in F-waves and TES-MEPs pre- and post-tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. F-wave analyses were recorded by stimulating the median and tibial nerves. TES-MEPs and F-wave analyses were compared between baseline and post-tetanic stimulation time periods using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. A significant augmentation of MEPs, independent of the level corresponding to the median nerve, was demonstrated. Furthermore, F-wave persistence was significantly increased not only in the median nerve but also in the tibial nerve after tetanic stimulation of the median nerve. The increased F-wave persistence indicates an increase of re-excited motor units in spinal anterior horn cells. These results confirm the hypothesis that tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve may cause remote augmentation of MEPs, primarily by increasing the excitability of the anterior horn cells.

Effect of peripheral nerve tetanic stimulation on the inter-trial variability and accuracy of transcranial motor-evoked potential in brain surgery

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the advantages of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential (p-MEP) and conventional motor-evoked potential (c-MEP) in terms of MEP inter-trial variability and accuracy.

METHODS

c-MEP and p-MEP were quantified in subjects who underwent brain surgery. c-MEP was generated by transcranial electrical stimulation (TES). p-MEP was generated using a preconditioning process involving tetanic stimulation at the left tibial nerve followed by TES. The presence of significant MEP deterioration was monitored during major surgical process. An additional 5-8 MEP obtained after major surgical process were used to analyze amplitude parameters such as mean, standard deviation, range, coefficient of variation (CV), and range to mean ratio.

RESULTS

When only irreversible MEP deteriorations were considered as positive results, the false-positive rate was identical for p-MEP and c-MEP. When total MEP deteriorations were considered as positive results, the false-positive rate of p-MEP was lower and p-MEP had higher specificity than c-MEP. The mean amplitude of p-MEP was significantly higher than that of c-MEP. The CV and range to mean ratio of p-MEP were less than those of c-MEP.

CONCLUSION

The p-MEP technique is useful for augmenting MEP amplitude and reducing inter-trial variability.

SIGNIFICANCE

p-MEP has clinical significance as a useful technique for intraoperative monitoring.