Variability of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery

被引:24
作者
Chen, ZY
Wong, HK
Chan, YH
机构
[1] Natl Univ Singapore Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Div Spinal Surg, Singapore 119074, Singapore
[2] Clin Trials & Epidemiol Res Unit, Singapore, Singapore
来源
JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES | 2004年 / 17卷 / 06期
关键词
intraoperative monitoring; scoliosis; somatosensory; evoked potential; isoflurane; mean arterial pressure;
D O I
10.1097/01.bsd.0000133465.89618.c8
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) of 65 patients undergoing scoliosis surgery were monitored by stimulation of posterior tibial nerve to observe variations in latencies and amplitudes. Methods: Monitoring was divided into five stages: pre incision, spine exposure, instrumentation loading, deformity correction, and wound closure (stages 1-5, respectively). Results: We found the latency showed significant increase and the amplitude significant reduction from stages 1 to 2. There was no significant variability from stages 2, 3, and 4, but both latency and amplitude recovered significantly from stage 4 to 5. This variability correlated with the changes in mean arterial pressure and end-tidal concentrations of isoflurane and was not dependent on the type of surgical procedure. If either 50% amplitude reduction or 10% latency prolongation of SEP compared with baseline recordings at stage 1 (pre incision) was used as warning criterion, the overall false-positive rate was 23.1%. It was significantly reduced to 7.7% if stage 2 (spine exposure) recordings were used as the baseline (P < 0.05). The false-positive rate decreased to 0% if a combined 50% amplitude reduction and 10% latency prolongation of SEP compared with the stage 2 baseline were used (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on these findings, we concluded that the time to obtain SEP baseline data should be adjusted to be post incision instead of pre incision.
引用
收藏
页码:470 / 476
页数:7
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]  
ALBANESE SA, 1991, SPINE, V16, pS371
[2]   Comparison of the effects of sevoflurane and propofol on cortical somatosensory evoked potentials [J].
Boisseau, N ;
Madany, M ;
Staccini, P ;
Armando, G ;
Martin, F ;
Grimaud, D ;
Raucoules-Aimé, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2002, 88 (06) :785-789
[3]  
Daube JR, 1999, MUSCLE NERVE, V22, P1151, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4598(199908)22:8<1151::AID-MUS24>3.0.CO
[4]  
2-T
[5]  
DAWSON EG, 1991, SPINE, V16, P361
[6]   SOMATOSENSORY EVOKED-POTENTIALS DURING HARRINGTON INSTRUMENTATION FOR SCOLIOSIS [J].
ENGLER, GL ;
SPIELHOLZ, NI ;
BERNHARD, WN ;
DANZIGER, F ;
MERKIN, H ;
WOLFF, T .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1978, 60 (04) :528-532
[7]  
KALMAN CJ, 1991, SPINE, V16, P924
[8]  
KEITH RW, 1990, J SPINAL DISORD, V3, P220
[9]   VARIABILITY OF SOMATOSENSORY CORTICAL EVOKED-POTENTIAL MONITORING DURING SPINAL SURGERY [J].
LUBICKY, JP ;
SPADARO, JA ;
YUAN, HA ;
FREDRICKSON, BE ;
HENDERSON, N .
SPINE, 1989, 14 (08) :790-798
[10]   Variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials in different stages of scoliosis surgery [J].
Luk, KDK ;
Hu, Y ;
Wong, YW ;
Leong, JCY .
SPINE, 1999, 24 (17) :1799-1804