Fast or Slow? A Comparison Between Two Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Techniques for Eliciting Motor-Evoked Potentials During Supratentorial Surgery.

PURPOSE

During intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of motor pathways, two types of transcranial electrical stimulation are available, i.e., constant-current and constant-voltage stimulation. Few previous studies, performed only during spinal surgery, analyzed and compared them during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The aim of our study was to compare these two stimulation techniques for eliciting motor-evoked potentials during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in a group of patients affected by supratentorial lesions.

METHODS

Supratentorial lesions from 16 patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Motor-evoked potentials were performed only from transcranial electrical stimulation because the inability to place the subdural strip electrodes correctly did not permit to perform direct cortical stimulation. At the beginning of surgery, in each patient, motor-evoked potentials were monitored by using both "fast-charge" constant-voltage and "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation. Several neurophysiological parameters were collected and compared between the two stimulation techniques by means of statistical analysis.

RESULTS

"Fast-charge" constant-voltage stimulation allowed statistically higher efficiency rates for eliciting motor-evoked potentials compared with "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation, both for upper and lower limbs. We also found that threshold and maximal charge as well as charge density were significantly lower during constant-voltage stimulation, thus lowering the potential tissue damage.

CONCLUSIONS

"Fast-charge" constant-voltage transcranial electrical stimulation is feasible and safe during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for supratentorial surgery and may be preferable to "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation.