Does persistent crossover (ipsilateral) motor evoked potential (MEP) responses represent a technical failure for intracranial motor tract monitoring? A case example and practical solution.

PURPOSE: Attention to motor evoked potential (MEP) stimulation intensity is necessary to avoid false negative MEP results during intracranial procedures. Observing ipsilateral (crossover) MEP responses has been hypothesized to indicate inappropriately strong stimulation intensity. We describe a case where persistent crossover MEP responses falsely suggested that stimulus intensity was too high and describe an alternative method to guide the selection of MEP stimulation intensity.

METHODS

A patient undergoing a suboccipital craniotomy for tumor resection had bilateral transcranial electrical MEP monitoring under total intravenous anesthesia. MEP results were obtained from left and right hand using C4-Cz and C3-Cz stimulation montages respectively. Selection of an appropriately superficial stimulus intensity was guided using MEP onset latencies.

RESULTS

MEP acquisition proceeded normally for contralateral left hand (C4-Cz montage). However, using the C3-Cz montage, persistent crossover responses were noted at stimulation intensities as low as threshold for contralateral right hand MEP (94 V/166 mA). Appropriate MEP stimulus intensity for subsequent monitoring (approximately 96 V/172 mA) was determined utilizing onset latency measurements from contralateral hand MEP responses. The stimulus intensity chosen was predicated on onset latency being ≥ 2 ms longer than latency at maximal stimulus level (shortest latency). A stimulus intensity-latency plot was generated offline to illustrate this important relationship for intracranial MEP use. MEP acquisition proceeded without incident and gross total resection was achieved without postoperative motor deficits.

CONCLUSION

Despite crossover appearance contralateral hand MEP were quantitatively validated for intraoperative application using onset latency guidance.