World neurosurgery · 2019
Comparison of Intraoperative Motor Evoked Potentials Monitoring with Direct Cranial Stimulation by Peg-Screw and Transcranial Stimulation by Corkscrew for Supratentorial Surgery.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Kanaya Kohei, Goto Tetsuya, Horiuchi Tetsuyoshi, Hongo Kazuhiro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Corkscrew (CS) electrodes are usually used for transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in the intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials (MEP). Direct cranial stimulation with peg-screw (PS) electrodes can elicit MEP. The present study investigated the difference in the initial threshold between PS and CS electrodes for intraoperative MEP monitoring.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed TES-MEP monitoring for supratentorial surgery in 72 patients. Of these 72 patients, 44 were monitored with PS and CS electrodes (PS/CS group) and 28 were monitored with CS and CS electrodes (CS/CS group). TES was used to deliver electrical stimulation by a train of 4-pulse anodal constant current stimulation. The initial threshold in each electrode was checked and analyzed.
RESULTS: In the PS/CS group, the initial threshold with the PS electrode was 38.3 ± 15.1 mA (mean ± standard deviation) on the affected side, and the initial threshold with the CS electrode was 51.4 ± 13.9 mA on the unaffected side. The initial threshold with the PS electrode was significantly lower than that with the CS electrode (P = 0.0001). In the CS/CS group, the initial threshold was 56.2 ± 16.5 mA on the affected side and 62.1 ± 18.6 mA on the unaffected side, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: The initial threshold to elicit MEP was significantly lower with the PS electrode than with the CS electrode. A PS electrode can be used as a feasible stimulation electrode for TES-MEP.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed TES-MEP monitoring for supratentorial surgery in 72 patients. Of these 72 patients, 44 were monitored with PS and CS electrodes (PS/CS group) and 28 were monitored with CS and CS electrodes (CS/CS group). TES was used to deliver electrical stimulation by a train of 4-pulse anodal constant current stimulation. The initial threshold in each electrode was checked and analyzed.
RESULTS: In the PS/CS group, the initial threshold with the PS electrode was 38.3 ± 15.1 mA (mean ± standard deviation) on the affected side, and the initial threshold with the CS electrode was 51.4 ± 13.9 mA on the unaffected side. The initial threshold with the PS electrode was significantly lower than that with the CS electrode (P = 0.0001). In the CS/CS group, the initial threshold was 56.2 ± 16.5 mA on the affected side and 62.1 ± 18.6 mA on the unaffected side, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.23).
CONCLUSION: The initial threshold to elicit MEP was significantly lower with the PS electrode than with the CS electrode. A PS electrode can be used as a feasible stimulation electrode for TES-MEP.