Adverse Events Related to Transcranial Electric Stimulation for Motor-evoked Potential Monitoring in High-risk Spinal Surgery.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2019
15 Oct 2019
Historique:
entrez:
8
10
2019
pubmed:
8
10
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prospective multicenter study. The aim of this study was to study the incidence of nonneurologic adverse events related to transcranial electric stimulation (TES) for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring (IOM) with motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) (Tc(E)- MEPs) and determine the need for safety precautions. Tc(E)-MEPs monitoring requires high-voltage multipulse TES that causes widespread muscle contraction and movement. Improved awareness of TES-induced movement-related adverse events is needed. We analyzed data from 2643 patients who underwent high-risk spinal surgery with intraoperative Tc(E)-MEPs at 11 spinal centers from 2010 to 2016. Information about neurologic and non-neurologic postoperative complications was collected, including type of surgical procedure, operative time, estimated blood loss, and treatment for postoperative adverse events. A 70% drop in Tc(E)-MEPs amplitude, which was the alarm criterion to interrupt surgery, predicted postoperative motor deficits with 93.5% sensitivity, 91.0% specificity, a false-positive rate of 8.2%, and a false-negative rate of 0.3%. Non-neurologic adverse events developed in 17 (0.64%) patients and were most commonly because of bite injuries (0.57%), including 11 cases of tongue laceration, two cases of lip laceration, and two cases of tooth breakage. Four (0.15%) tongue lacerations required surgical repair with sutures and two tooth breakages required dental treatment. One patient had hair loss corresponding to the TES site. One patient, who underwent additional IOM with transpharyngeal stimulation, had severe nasal hemorrhage following electrode placement by nasal route, which resolved spontaneously. Non-neurologic adverse events did not significantly affect the accuracy of IOM assessment. Neither operative times nor blood loss significantly influenced the occurrence of adverse events. During TES-IOM, both the surgeon and monitoring team must consider the possibility-although rare-of non-neurologic adverse events, particularly bite injuries. Such complications can be minimized by using a soft bite-block and frequently evaluating the intraoral integrity of the anesthetized patient. 4.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Prospective multicenter study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to study the incidence of nonneurologic adverse events related to transcranial electric stimulation (TES) for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring (IOM) with motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) (Tc(E)- MEPs) and determine the need for safety precautions.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Tc(E)-MEPs monitoring requires high-voltage multipulse TES that causes widespread muscle contraction and movement. Improved awareness of TES-induced movement-related adverse events is needed.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed data from 2643 patients who underwent high-risk spinal surgery with intraoperative Tc(E)-MEPs at 11 spinal centers from 2010 to 2016. Information about neurologic and non-neurologic postoperative complications was collected, including type of surgical procedure, operative time, estimated blood loss, and treatment for postoperative adverse events.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A 70% drop in Tc(E)-MEPs amplitude, which was the alarm criterion to interrupt surgery, predicted postoperative motor deficits with 93.5% sensitivity, 91.0% specificity, a false-positive rate of 8.2%, and a false-negative rate of 0.3%. Non-neurologic adverse events developed in 17 (0.64%) patients and were most commonly because of bite injuries (0.57%), including 11 cases of tongue laceration, two cases of lip laceration, and two cases of tooth breakage. Four (0.15%) tongue lacerations required surgical repair with sutures and two tooth breakages required dental treatment. One patient had hair loss corresponding to the TES site. One patient, who underwent additional IOM with transpharyngeal stimulation, had severe nasal hemorrhage following electrode placement by nasal route, which resolved spontaneously. Non-neurologic adverse events did not significantly affect the accuracy of IOM assessment. Neither operative times nor blood loss significantly influenced the occurrence of adverse events.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
During TES-IOM, both the surgeon and monitoring team must consider the possibility-although rare-of non-neurologic adverse events, particularly bite injuries. Such complications can be minimized by using a soft bite-block and frequently evaluating the intraoral integrity of the anesthetized patient.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
4.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31589200
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003115
pii: 00007632-201910150-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1435-1440Références
Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, et al. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:S37–S46.
Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, et al. American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124:2291–2316.
Bartley K, Woodforth IJ, Stephen JP, et al. Corticospinal volleys and compound muscle action potentials produced by repetitive transcranial stimulation during spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113:78–90.
Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journée H, et al. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28:1043–1050.
Luk KD, Hu Y, Wong YW, et al. Evaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26:1772–1777.
Yoshida G, Ando M, Imagama S, et al. Alert timing and corresponding intervention with intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for high risk spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:E470–E479.
Taniguchi M, Cedzich C, Schramm J. Modification of cortical stimulation for motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia: technical description. Neurosurgery 1993; 32:219–226.
Ito Z, Imagama S, Sakai Y, et al. A new criterion for the alarm point for compound muscle action potentials. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17:348–356.
Kobayashi S, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K, et al. A new alarm point of transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: a prospective multicenter study from the Spinal Cord Monitoring Working Group of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20:102–107.
Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, et al. The cutoff amplitude of transcranial motor evoked potentials for transient postoperative motor deficits in intramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E1086–E1094.
MacDonald DB. Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 19:416–429.
Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK, Dormans JP, et al. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring during spine surgery: is it safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:1046–1049.
Tamkus A, Rice K. The incidence of bite injuries associated with transcranial motor-evoked potential monitoring. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:663–667.
Levy WJ, York DH, McCaffrey M, et al. Motor evoked potentials from transcranial stimulation of the motor cortex in humans. Neurosurgery 1984; 15:287–302.
Saypol JM, Roth BJ, Cohen LG, et al. A theoretical comparison of electric and magnetic stimulation of the brain. Ann Biomed Eng 1991; 19:317–328.
Nathan SS, Sinha SR, Gordon B, et al. Determination of current density distributions generated by electrical stimulation of the human cerebral cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 86:183–192.