Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2014
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of microvascular decompression for glossopharyngeal neuralgia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Habeych Miguel E, Crammond Donald J, Gardner Paul, Thirumala Parthasarathy D, Horowitz Michael B, Balzer Jeffrey R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate if adding cranial nerves (CNs) V and VI to standard intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) of microvascular decompressions for glossopharyngeal neuralgia improve its efficacy.
METHODS: We reviewed all patients who received a microvascular decompression for glossopharyngeal neuralgia at our institution between January 2008 and August 2012. All received upper extremity somatosensory evoked potentials, brainstem auditory evoked potentials, and free-running electromyography of muscles innervated by ipsilateral CNs VII, IX, and X. The sample was divided into 12 patients who received additional monitoring of CNs V and VI and 15 who did not.
RESULTS: No difference on neurotonic activity presence was found on CN V (standard IONM: 0% versus additional CNs IONM: 8.33%; p = 0.423), CN VI (never present on the additional CN patients), CN VII (standard IONM: 73.33% versus additional CNs IONM: 66.64%; p = 0.973), CN IX (standard IONM: 40.0% versus additional CNs IONM: 25.0%; p = 0.683), or CN X (standard IONM: 46.67% versus additional CNs IONM: 33.33%; p = 0.701) between groups. Additionally, no differences of brainstem auditory evoked potentials wave V's delay, and amplitude at the end of the decompression, or closing of the case were found between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring free-running electromyography of additional CNs V and VI does not improve the efficacy of IONM of microvascular decompressions for glossopharyngeal neuralgia.
METHODS: We reviewed all patients who received a microvascular decompression for glossopharyngeal neuralgia at our institution between January 2008 and August 2012. All received upper extremity somatosensory evoked potentials, brainstem auditory evoked potentials, and free-running electromyography of muscles innervated by ipsilateral CNs VII, IX, and X. The sample was divided into 12 patients who received additional monitoring of CNs V and VI and 15 who did not.
RESULTS: No difference on neurotonic activity presence was found on CN V (standard IONM: 0% versus additional CNs IONM: 8.33%; p = 0.423), CN VI (never present on the additional CN patients), CN VII (standard IONM: 73.33% versus additional CNs IONM: 66.64%; p = 0.973), CN IX (standard IONM: 40.0% versus additional CNs IONM: 25.0%; p = 0.683), or CN X (standard IONM: 46.67% versus additional CNs IONM: 33.33%; p = 0.701) between groups. Additionally, no differences of brainstem auditory evoked potentials wave V's delay, and amplitude at the end of the decompression, or closing of the case were found between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring free-running electromyography of additional CNs V and VI does not improve the efficacy of IONM of microvascular decompressions for glossopharyngeal neuralgia.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAgedChi-Square DistributionCranial NervesElectromyographyEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryFemaleGlossopharyngeal Nerve DiseasesHumansIntraoperative Neurophysiological MonitoringMaleMicrovascular Decompression SurgeryMiddle AgedOculomotor MusclesRetrospective Studies