The incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for aneurysm clipping

dc.contributor.authorHemmer, Laura B.
dc.contributor.authorZeeni, Carine A.
dc.contributor.authorBebawy, John F.
dc.contributor.authorBendok, Bernard R.
dc.contributor.authorCotton, Matthew A.
dc.contributor.authorShah, Neil B.
dc.contributor.authorGupta, Dhanesh K.
dc.contributor.authorKoht, Antoun H.
dc.contributor.departmentAnesthesiology
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T11:40:25Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T11:40:25Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractObjective: To review the experience at a single institution with motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during intracranial aneurysm surgery to determine the incidence of unacceptable movement. Methods: Neurophysiology event logs and anesthetic records from 220 craniotomies for aneurysm clipping were reviewed for unacceptable patient movement or reason for cessation of MEPs. Muscle relaxants were not given after intubation. Transcranial MEPs were recorded from bilateral abductor hallucis and abductor pollicis muscles. MEP stimulus intensity was increased up to 500 V until evoked potential responses were detectable. Results: Out of 220 patients, 7 (3.2%) exhibited unacceptable movement with MEP stimulation - 2 had nociception-induced movement and 5 had excessive field movement. In all but one case, MEP monitoring could be resumed, yielding a 99.5% monitoring rate. Conclusions: With the anesthetic and monitoring regimen, the authors were able to record MEPs of the upper and lower extremities in all patients and found only 3.2% demonstrated unacceptable movement. With a suitable anesthetic technique, MEP monitoring in the upper and lower extremities appears to be feasible in most patients and should not be withheld because of concern for movement during neurovascular surgery. © 2014 Elsevier Inc.
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2012.05.034
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-84893791976
dc.identifier.pmid23043993
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/29451
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Neurosurgery
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectIntracranial aneurysm
dc.subjectIntraoperative monitoring
dc.subjectMotor evoked potentials
dc.subjectAnesthesia
dc.subjectCerebral revascularization
dc.subjectCraniotomy
dc.subjectElectric stimulation
dc.subjectElectroencephalography
dc.subjectEvoked potentials, motor
dc.subjectEvoked potentials, somatosensory
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectHypothermia, induced
dc.subjectIntraoperative period
dc.subjectMonitoring, intraoperative
dc.subjectMovement
dc.subjectMuscle relaxants, central
dc.subjectMuscle, skeletal
dc.subjectNeurosurgical procedures
dc.subjectRetrospective studies
dc.subjectAbductor pollicis muscle
dc.subjectAneurysm clip
dc.subjectBilateral abductor hallucis muscle
dc.subjectClinical article
dc.subjectEvoked muscle response
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectIntubation
dc.subjectLimb movement
dc.subjectMedical record review
dc.subjectMuscle
dc.subjectNociception
dc.subjectRetrospective study
dc.subjectReview
dc.subjectStimulation
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectElectroencephalogram
dc.subjectIncidence
dc.subjectMajor clinical study
dc.subjectNeuromonitoring
dc.subjectNeurophysiology
dc.subjectTreatment outcome
dc.subjectTreatment response
dc.subjectUnacceptable movement
dc.titleThe incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for aneurysm clipping
dc.typeReview

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2014-10929.pdf
Size:
1.12 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections