Lo Yl, Dan Yf, Tan Ye, Teo A, Tan Sb, Yue Wm, Guo Cm, Fook-Chong S
Department of Neurology, National Neuroscience Institute, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore 169608, Singapore.
Scoliosis. 2010 Feb 23;5:3. doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-5-3.
During intraoperative monitoring for scoliosis surgery, we have previously elicited ipsilateral and contralateral motor evoked potentials (MEP) with cross scalp stimulation. Ipsilateral MEPs, which may have comprised summation of early ipsilaterally conducted components and transcallosally or deep white matter stimulated components, can show larger amplitudes than those derived purely from contralateral motor cortex stimulation. We tested this hypothesis using two stimulating positions. We compared intraoperative MEPs in 14 neurologically normal subjects undergoing scoliosis surgery using total intravenous anesthetic regimens.
Trancranial electrical stimulation was applied with both cross scalp (C3C4 or C4C3) or midline (C3Cz or C4Cz) positions. The latter was assumed to be more focal and result in little transcallosal/deep white matter stimulation. A train of 5 square wave stimuli 0.5 ms in duration at up to 200 mA was delivered with 4 ms (250 Hz) interstimulus intervals. Averaged supramaximal MEPs were obtained from the tibialis anterior bilaterally.
The cross scalp stimulating position resulted in supramaximal MEPs that were of significantly higher amplitude, shorter latency and required lower stimulating intensity to elicit overall (Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, p < 0.05 for all), as compared to the midline stimulating position. However, no significant differences were found for all 3 parameters comparing ipsilaterally and contralaterally recorded MEPs (p > 0.05 for all), seen for both stimulating positions individually.
Our findings suggest that cross scalp stimulation resulted in MEPs obtained ipsilaterally and contralaterally which may be contributed to by summation of ipsilateral and simultaneous transcallosally or deep white matter conducted stimulation of the opposite motor cortex. Use of this stimulating position is advocated to elicit MEPs under operative circumstances where anesthetic agents may cause suppression of cortical and spinal excitability. Although less focal in nature, cross scalp stimulation would be most suitable for infratentorial or spinal surgery, in contrast to supratentorial neurosurgical procedures.
在脊柱侧弯手术的术中监测期间,我们之前通过跨头皮刺激引出了同侧和对侧运动诱发电位(MEP)。同侧MEP可能包括早期同侧传导成分以及经胼胝体或深部白质刺激成分的总和,其振幅可能比单纯来自对侧运动皮层刺激所产生的振幅更大。我们使用两个刺激位置对这一假设进行了测试。我们比较了14例接受脊柱侧弯手术且采用全静脉麻醉方案的神经功能正常受试者的术中MEP。
采用跨头皮(C3C4或C4C3)或中线(C3Cz或C4Cz)位置进行经颅电刺激。后者被认为更具局限性,且经胼胝体/深部白质刺激较少。以4毫秒(250赫兹)的刺激间隔施加一串持续时间为0.5毫秒、强度高达200毫安的5个方波刺激。从双侧胫前肌获取平均最大MEP。
与中线刺激位置相比,跨头皮刺激位置所产生的最大MEP在总体上具有显著更高的振幅、更短的潜伏期且引出所需的刺激强度更低(Wilcoxon符号秩检验,所有参数p < 0.05)。然而,在比较同侧和对侧记录的MEP的所有3个参数时,未发现显著差异(所有参数p > 0.05),两个刺激位置单独来看均如此。
我们的研究结果表明,跨头皮刺激所产生的同侧和对侧MEP可能是同侧以及同时经胼胝体或深部白质传导的对侧运动皮层刺激总和的结果。在麻醉药物可能导致皮层和脊髓兴奋性受到抑制的手术情况下,提倡使用这种刺激位置来引出MEP。尽管本质上局限性较小,但与幕上神经外科手术相比,跨头皮刺激最适合幕下或脊柱手术。