Meyer B, Zentner J
Abteilung für Neurochirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Schnarrenberg, Tübingen.
EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Elektromyogr Verwandte Geb. 1990 Dec;21(4):247-52.
Motor evoked potentials (MEP) were recorded in a total of 145 patients with supratentorial (N = 29), infratentorial (N = 25) and spinal (N = 91) lesions affecting the descending pathways. In all cases potentials were evoked by electrical, in addition in 55 of them by electromagnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. The peripheral conduction time was determined in all patients by electrical stimulation of the cervical and lumbar nerve roots, respectively. This study was designed to compare both stimulation techniques (electrical vs. electromagnetic) regarding their significance in recording of potentials as well as in correlation of potentials with the motor status as established by clinical examination. Our results show that potentials were obtained in 87.6% following central (cortex) and in 100% following central electromagnetic stimulation. 87.9% of the recordings in infratentorial and spinal lesions show a correct and 12.2% a "false positive" correlation with the clinical motor status. On the other hand, the correlation was false negative in 13.8%, correct in 79.3% and "false positive" in 6.9% of the supratentorial cases. There was no difference between electrical and electromagnetic stimulation regarding diagnostic significance of potentials. Our results allow the following conclusions: both electrically and electromagnetically evoked potentials are sensitive for electrophysiological assessment of infratentorial and spinal lesions, but unreliable in evaluation of supratentorial lesions, especially in the acute stage. Due to its painlessness, electromagnetic stimulation is the method of choice for transcranial eliciting of MEP in the awake patient, who is capable of facilitation by voluntary background contraction of the target muscle.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
共对145例幕上(N = 29)、幕下(N = 25)和脊髓(N = 91)病变影响下行通路的患者记录了运动诱发电位(MEP)。所有病例均通过电刺激诱发电位,此外其中55例通过对运动皮层进行电磁刺激诱发电位。所有患者均通过分别电刺激颈神经根和腰神经根来测定外周传导时间。本研究旨在比较两种刺激技术(电刺激与电磁刺激)在电位记录以及电位与临床检查所确定的运动状态的相关性方面的意义。我们的结果显示,中枢(皮层)电刺激后87.6%获得了电位,中枢电磁刺激后100%获得了电位。幕下和脊髓病变记录中87.9%与临床运动状态显示出正确的相关性,12.2%为“假阳性”相关性。另一方面,幕上病例中13.8%的相关性为假阴性,79.3%为正确,6.9%为“假阳性”。在电位的诊断意义方面,电刺激和电磁刺激之间没有差异。我们的结果得出以下结论:电刺激和电磁刺激诱发的电位对幕下和脊髓病变的电生理评估均敏感,但在评估幕上病变时不可靠,尤其是在急性期。由于无痛,电磁刺激是在清醒患者中经颅引出MEP的首选方法,该患者能够通过目标肌肉的自主背景收缩来促进诱发电位。(摘要截断于250字)