Hayashi Hironobu, Kawaguchi Masahiko, Yamamoto Yuri, Inoue Satoki, Koizumi Munehisa, Ueda Yurito, Takakura Yoshinori, Furuya Hitoshi
Department of Anesthesiology and Orthopaedic Surgery, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Dec 15;33(26):E994-E1000. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318188adfc.
A prospective research.
Compare the reliability of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential (p-MEP) monitoring in the detection of motor injury during spinal surgery with that of conventional MEP (c-MEP).
Myogenic MEPs are sensitive to suppression by anesthetics and neuromuscular blockade. Recently, we reported a new technique for MEP recording, called "p-MEP" in which MEP amplitude can be enlarged by tetanic stimulation of peripheral nerve before transcranial stimulation in comparison with that of c-MEP. The purpose of this study is to compare the reliability of p-MEP monitoring in the detection of motor injury during spinal surgery with that of c-MEP.
Eighty patients undergoing elective spinal surgery were enrolled in the study. Both c-MEP and p-MEP monitoring were performed throughout the operation in each patient. For recording c-MEPs, transcranial electrical train of five pulses stimulation with an interstimulus interval of 2 milliseconds was performed and compound muscle action potentials were bilaterally recorded from abductor pollicis brevis, abductor hallucis, tibialis anterior, and soleus muscles. For recording p-MEPs, tetanic stimulation (50 Hz, 50 mA, 5 sec) was applied to the left median nerve and bilateral tibial nerves 1 second before transcranial stimulation and compound muscle action potentials were recorded from the same muscles. The false positive, false negative, and accuracy of MEP monitoring in the detection of change in motor function were compared between p-MEP and c-MEP.
At the baseline, success rates of baseline c-MEP and p-MEP recording were 66.3% (53/80) and 92.5% (74/80), respectively. The false positive, false negative, and accuracy of p-MEP monitoring were 0%, 0%, and 100%, respectively, whereas c-MEP were 4%, 20%, and 95%, respectively.
The results indicate that p-MEP is a more reliable method to detect changes in motor function during spinal surgery under general anesthesia in comparison with c-MEP.
前瞻性研究。
比较强直后运动诱发电位(p-MEP)监测在脊柱手术中检测运动损伤的可靠性与传统运动诱发电位(c-MEP)的可靠性。
肌源性运动诱发电位对麻醉药和神经肌肉阻滞的抑制作用敏感。最近,我们报道了一种新的运动诱发电位记录技术,称为“p-MEP”,与c-MEP相比,在经颅刺激前通过对周围神经进行强直刺激可增大运动诱发电位的幅度。本研究的目的是比较p-MEP监测在脊柱手术中检测运动损伤的可靠性与c-MEP的可靠性。
80例接受择期脊柱手术的患者纳入本研究。每位患者在整个手术过程中均进行c-MEP和p-MEP监测。记录c-MEP时,采用经颅5个脉冲的电串刺激,刺激间隔为2毫秒,双侧记录拇短展肌、拇展肌、胫骨前肌和比目鱼肌的复合肌肉动作电位。记录p-MEP时,在经颅刺激前1秒对左侧正中神经和双侧胫神经施加强直刺激(50Hz,50mA,5秒),并从相同肌肉记录复合肌肉动作电位。比较p-MEP和c-MEP在检测运动功能变化时运动诱发电位监测的假阳性、假阴性和准确性。
基线时,基线c-MEP和p-MEP记录的成功率分别为66.3%(53/80)和92.5%(74/80)。p-MEP监测的假阳性、假阴性和准确性分别为0%、0%和100%,而c-MEP分别为4%、20%和95%。
结果表明,与c-MEP相比,p-MEP是在全身麻醉下脊柱手术中检测运动功能变化的更可靠方法。