Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society · 2021
Fast or Slow? A Comparison Between Two Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Techniques for Eliciting Motor-Evoked Potentials During Supratentorial Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lettieri Christian, Pauletto Giada, Valiante Gabriele, Ius Tamara, Verriello Lorenzo, Valente Mariarosaria, Skrap Miran, Gigli Gian L, Budai Riccardo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: During intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of motor pathways, two types of transcranial electrical stimulation are available, i.e., constant-current and constant-voltage stimulation. Few previous studies, performed only during spinal surgery, analyzed and compared them during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. The aim of our study was to compare these two stimulation techniques for eliciting motor-evoked potentials during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in a group of patients affected by supratentorial lesions.
METHODS: Supratentorial lesions from 16 patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Motor-evoked potentials were performed only from transcranial electrical stimulation because the inability to place the subdural strip electrodes correctly did not permit to perform direct cortical stimulation. At the beginning of surgery, in each patient, motor-evoked potentials were monitored by using both "fast-charge" constant-voltage and "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation. Several neurophysiological parameters were collected and compared between the two stimulation techniques by means of statistical analysis.
RESULTS: "Fast-charge" constant-voltage stimulation allowed statistically higher efficiency rates for eliciting motor-evoked potentials compared with "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation, both for upper and lower limbs. We also found that threshold and maximal charge as well as charge density were significantly lower during constant-voltage stimulation, thus lowering the potential tissue damage.
CONCLUSIONS: "Fast-charge" constant-voltage transcranial electrical stimulation is feasible and safe during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for supratentorial surgery and may be preferable to "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation.
METHODS: Supratentorial lesions from 16 patients were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Motor-evoked potentials were performed only from transcranial electrical stimulation because the inability to place the subdural strip electrodes correctly did not permit to perform direct cortical stimulation. At the beginning of surgery, in each patient, motor-evoked potentials were monitored by using both "fast-charge" constant-voltage and "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation. Several neurophysiological parameters were collected and compared between the two stimulation techniques by means of statistical analysis.
RESULTS: "Fast-charge" constant-voltage stimulation allowed statistically higher efficiency rates for eliciting motor-evoked potentials compared with "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation, both for upper and lower limbs. We also found that threshold and maximal charge as well as charge density were significantly lower during constant-voltage stimulation, thus lowering the potential tissue damage.
CONCLUSIONS: "Fast-charge" constant-voltage transcranial electrical stimulation is feasible and safe during intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for supratentorial surgery and may be preferable to "slow-charge" constant-current stimulation.