Optimizing the methodology for saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring upper lumbar roots and femoral nerve during lumbar spine surgery: technical note

被引:0
作者
M. Ángeles Sánchez Roldán
Francisco Mora Granizo
Victoria Oflidis
Konstantinos Margetis
Maria J. Téllez
Sedat Ulkatan
Jun Kimura
机构
[1] Mount Sinai West Hospital,Department of Intraoperative Neurophysiology
[2] Mount Sinai West Hospital,Department of Neurosurgery
[3] University of Iowa Health Care,Emeritus Professor Department of Neurology
来源
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing | 2022年 / 36卷
关键词
Saphenous nerve; Somatosensory evoked potentials; Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; Lumbar spine surgery; Methodology;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The demand for intraoperative monitoring (IOM) of lumbar spine surgeries has escalated to accommodate more challenging surgical approaches to prevent perioperative neurologic deficits. Identifying impending injury of individual lumbar roots can be done by assessing free-running EMG and by monitoring the integrity of sensory and motor fibers within the roots by eliciting somatosensory (SEP), and motor evoked potentials. However, the common nerves for eliciting lower limb SEP do not monitor the entire lumbar plexus, excluding fibers from L1 to L4 roots. We aimed to technically optimize the methodology for saphenous nerve SEP (Sap-SEP) proposed for monitoring upper lumbar roots in the operating room. In the first group, the saphenous nerve was consecutively stimulated in two different locations: proximal in the thigh and distal close to the tibia. In the second group, three different recording derivations (10–20 International system) to distal saphenous stimulation were tested. Distal stimulation yielded a higher Sap-SEP amplitude (mean ± SD) than proximal: 1.36 ± 0.9 µV versus 0.62 ± 0.6 µV, (p < 0.0001). Distal stimulation evoked either higher (73%) or similar (12%) Sap-SEP amplitude compared to proximal in most of the nerves. The recording derivation CPz–cCP showed the highest amplitude in 65% of the nerves, followed by CPz–Fz (24%). Distal stimulation for Sap-SEP has advantages over proximal stimulation, including simplicity, lack of movement and higher amplitude responses. The use of two derivations (CPz–cCP, CPz–Fz) optimizes Sap-SEP recording.
引用
收藏
页码:1079 / 1085
页数:6
相关论文
共 78 条
[1]  
Aminoff MJ(1998)AAEM minimonograph 19: somatosensory evoked potentials Muscle Nerve 21 277-290
[2]  
Eisen AA(2012)Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: are we really that bad? J Clin Neurophysiol 29 157-159
[3]  
Eccher M(1980)Sensory nerve stimulation and evoked cerebral potentials Neurology 30 1097-1105
[4]  
Eisen A(1986)Mixed and sensory nerve stimulations activate different cytoarchitectonic areas in the human primary somatosensory cortex SI. Neuromagnetic recordings and statistical considerations Exp Brain Res 63 60-66
[5]  
Elleker G(2017)Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in scoliosis surgery: a two-year prospective analysis in a single centre Neurol India 65 75-79
[6]  
Kaukoranta E(2018)Neuromonitoring in spinal deformity surgery: a multimodality approach Glob Spine J 8 68-77
[7]  
Hamalainen M(2001)Individually optimizing posterior tibial somatosensory evoked potential P37 scalp derivations for intraoperative monitoring J Clin Neurophysiol 18 364-371
[8]  
Sarvas J(2005)Tibial somatosensory evoked potential intraoperative monitoring: recommendations based on signal to noise ratio analysis of popliteal fossa, optimized P37, standard P37, and P31 potentials Clin Neurophysiol 116 1858-1869
[9]  
Hari R(2019)Recommendations of the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology for intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials Clin Neurophysiol 130 161-179
[10]  
Krishnakumar R(1989)The cortical distribution of muscle and cutaneous afferent projections from the human foot Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 72 518-528