Comparison Between Cz-C3/C4 and C3-C4 Montages to Protect Against Peripheral Stimulation in Transcranial Facial Motor-Evoked Potential Monitoring.
Journal
Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society
ISSN: 1537-1603
Titre abrégé: J Clin Neurophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506708
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2023
09 Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
14
11
2023
pubmed:
14
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In facial motor-evoked potential monitoring, efforts to reduce peripheral stimulation are necessary because it can cause false-negatives. The effects of peripheral stimulation on Cz-C3/C4 and C3-C4 montages were compared. Facial motor-evoked potentials were recorded from bilateral orbicularis oculi (Oculi) and oris (Oris) muscles. The double-train approach combining single-pulse and five-train pulse stimulation was used to determine the effect of peripheral stimulation. If the five-train pulse produced a significant waveform, it was defined as "total success." In total success cases, "true success" was defined as a case in which no waveform appeared after the single pulse at the threshold level of the five-train pulse. The total and true success rates and the threshold value of Oculi and Oris were compared between Cz-C3/C4 and C3-C4 montages. Thirty-six muscles each of Oculi and Oris of 18 patients were used for the analysis. True success was more likely to be obtained by the Cz-C3/C4 montage than the C3-C4 montage in Oculi (42% vs. 22%, p = 0.039). Both Oculi and Oris had higher thresholds to elicit facial motor-evoked potentials with the Cz-C3/C4 montage (Oculi: 101.7 vs. 71.4 mA, p = 0.038; Oris: 94.8 vs. 73.1 mA, p = 0.016). Cz-C3/4 montage is more effective at reducing peripheral stimulation compared with the C3-4 montage. This effect was primarily seen in the orbicularis oculi muscle. It should be noted that the Cz-C3/C4 montage has a higher threshold than the C3-C4 montage in facial muscles. In facial motor-evoked potential monitoring, the Cz-C3/C4 montage may be more suitable to eliminate peripheral stimulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37963331
doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000001024
pii: 00004691-990000000-00112
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Hone SW, Commins DJ, Rames P, et al. Prognostic factors in intraoperative facial nerve monitoring for acoustic neuroma. J Otolaryngol 1997;26:374–378.
Hiruta R, Sato T, Itakura T, et al. Intraoperative transcranial facial motor evoked potential monitoring in surgery of cerebellopontine angle tumors predicts early and late postoperative facial nerve function. Clin Neurophysiol 2021;132:864–871.
Dong CC, Macdonald DB, Akagami R, et al. Intraoperative facial motor evoked potential monitoring with transcranial electrical stimulation during skull base surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:588–596.
Macdonald DB. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update. J Clin Monit Comput 2006;20:347–377.
Sarnthein J, Hejrati N, Neidert MC, Huber AM, Krayenbühl N. Facial nerve motor evoked potentials during skull base surgery to monitor facial nerve function using the threshold-level method. Neurosurg Focus 2013;34:E7.
Verst SM, Sucena AC, Maldaun MV, Aguiar PH. Effectiveness of C5 or C6-Cz assembly in predicting immediate post operative facial nerve deficit. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013;155:1863–1869.
Akagami R, Dong CC, Westerberg BD. Localized transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials for monitoring cranial nerves in cranial base surgery. Neurosurgery 2005;57:78–85.
House JW, Brackmann DE. Facial nerve grading system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985;93:146–147.
Fukuda M, Oishi M, Takao T, Saito A, Fujii Y. Facial nerve motor-evoked potential monitoring during skull base surgery predicts facial nerve outcome. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:1066–1070.
Morecraft RJ, Stilwell-Morecraft KS, Rossing WR. The motor cortex and facial expression: new insights from neuroscience. Neurologist 2004;10:235–249.
Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation1. Brain 1937;60:389–443.
Szelényi A, Kothbauer KF, Deletis V. Transcranial electric stimulation for intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: stimulation parameters and electrode montages. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118:1586–1595.
Tomio R, Akiyama T, Ohira T, Yoshida K. Effects of transcranial stimulating electrode montages over the head for lower-extremity transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 2017;126:1951–1958.
Acioly MA, Gharabaghi A, Liebsch M, Carvalho CH, Aguiar PH, Tatagiba M. Quantitative parameters of facial motor evoked potential during vestibular schwannoma surgery predict postoperative facial nerve function. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153:1169–1179.