Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2020
Utility of Motor and Somatosensory Evoked Potentials for Neural Thermoprotection in Ablations of Musculoskeletal Tumors.
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.
Yoon Jason T, Nesbitt Jared, Raynor Barry L, Roth Michael, Zertan Colin C, Jennings Jack W
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To characterize the utility of monitoring transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (TCeMEPs) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) for neural thermoprotection during musculoskeletal tumor ablations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 29 patients (16 male; median age, 46 y; range, 7-77 y) who underwent musculoskeletal tumor radiofrequency ablation (n = 8) or cryoablation (n = 22) with intraprocedural TCeMEP and SSEP monitoring was performed. The most common tumor histologies were osteoid osteoma (n = 6), venous malformation (n = 5), sarcoma (n = 5), renal cell carcinoma (n = 4), and non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 3). The most common tumor sites were spine (n = 22) and lower extremities (n = 4). Abnormal TCeMEP change was defined by 100-V increase above baseline threshold activation for a given myotome; abnormal SSEP change was defined by 60% reduction in baseline amplitude and/or 10% increase in latency.
RESULTS: Abnormal changes in TCeMEP (n = 9; 30%) and/or SSEP (n = 5; 17%) occurred in 12 procedures (40%) and did not recover in 5 patients. Patients with unchanged TCeMEP/SSEP activities throughout the procedure (n = 18) did not have motor or sensory symptoms after the procedure; 3 (60%) with unrecovered activity changes and 2 (29%) with transient activity changes had new motor (n = 1) or sensory (n = 4) symptoms. Relative risk for neurologic sequelae for patients with unrecovered TCeMEP/SSEP changes vs those with transient or no changes was 7.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.66-33.9; P = .009).
CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal activity changes of TCeMEP or SSEP during percutaneous ablative procedures correlate with postprocedural neurologic sequelae.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 29 patients (16 male; median age, 46 y; range, 7-77 y) who underwent musculoskeletal tumor radiofrequency ablation (n = 8) or cryoablation (n = 22) with intraprocedural TCeMEP and SSEP monitoring was performed. The most common tumor histologies were osteoid osteoma (n = 6), venous malformation (n = 5), sarcoma (n = 5), renal cell carcinoma (n = 4), and non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 3). The most common tumor sites were spine (n = 22) and lower extremities (n = 4). Abnormal TCeMEP change was defined by 100-V increase above baseline threshold activation for a given myotome; abnormal SSEP change was defined by 60% reduction in baseline amplitude and/or 10% increase in latency.
RESULTS: Abnormal changes in TCeMEP (n = 9; 30%) and/or SSEP (n = 5; 17%) occurred in 12 procedures (40%) and did not recover in 5 patients. Patients with unchanged TCeMEP/SSEP activities throughout the procedure (n = 18) did not have motor or sensory symptoms after the procedure; 3 (60%) with unrecovered activity changes and 2 (29%) with transient activity changes had new motor (n = 1) or sensory (n = 4) symptoms. Relative risk for neurologic sequelae for patients with unrecovered TCeMEP/SSEP changes vs those with transient or no changes was 7.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.66-33.9; P = .009).
CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal activity changes of TCeMEP or SSEP during percutaneous ablative procedures correlate with postprocedural neurologic sequelae.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAgedBone NeoplasmsChildCryosurgeryDatabases, FactualEvoked Potentials, MotorEvoked Potentials, SomatosensoryFemaleHumansIntraoperative Neurophysiological MonitoringMaleMiddle AgedMuscle NeoplasmsPeripheral Nerve InjuriesPredictive Value of TestsRadiofrequency AblationReaction TimeRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult