Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery

A. Szelényi, D. Langer, J. Beck, A. Raabe, Eugene S. Flamm, V. Seifert, V. Deletis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study aim: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. Patients and methods: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5 ± 14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5 ms, an interstimulus interval of 4 ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2 Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200 mA (TES) versus 25 mA (DCS). Results: In 95/108 (88%) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12%) patients, we observed nine (64%) temporary changes, four (29%) permanent deteriorations and one (7%) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64%) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93%) with DCS (Fishers' p = 0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57%), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33% with TES-MMEPs (p = 0.567, NS). Discussion and conclusions: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)391-398
Number of pages8
JournalNeurophysiologie Clinique
Volume37
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2007

Fingerprint

Motor Evoked Potentials
Aneurysm
Muscles
Motor Cortex
Efferent Pathways
Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Intracranial Aneurysm
Muscle Contraction
Blood Vessels
Electrodes

Keywords

  • Cerebral aneurysm
  • Direct cortical stimulation
  • Intracerebral aneurysm
  • Intraoperative monitoring
  • Motor evoked potentials
  • Postoperative motor deficit
  • Transcranial electric stimulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery. / Szelényi, A.; Langer, D.; Beck, J.; Raabe, A.; Flamm, Eugene S.; Seifert, V.; Deletis, V.

In: Neurophysiologie Clinique, Vol. 37, No. 6, 12.2007, p. 391-398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Szelényi, A. ; Langer, D. ; Beck, J. ; Raabe, A. ; Flamm, Eugene S. ; Seifert, V. ; Deletis, V. / Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery. In: Neurophysiologie Clinique. 2007 ; Vol. 37, No. 6. pp. 391-398.
@article{2849822f742b4c1aafda781a3e88f0cc,
title = "Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery",
abstract = "Study aim: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. Patients and methods: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5 ± 14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5 ms, an interstimulus interval of 4 ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2 Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200 mA (TES) versus 25 mA (DCS). Results: In 95/108 (88{\%}) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12{\%}) patients, we observed nine (64{\%}) temporary changes, four (29{\%}) permanent deteriorations and one (7{\%}) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64{\%}) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93{\%}) with DCS (Fishers' p = 0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57{\%}), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33{\%} with TES-MMEPs (p = 0.567, NS). Discussion and conclusions: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.",
keywords = "Cerebral aneurysm, Direct cortical stimulation, Intracerebral aneurysm, Intraoperative monitoring, Motor evoked potentials, Postoperative motor deficit, Transcranial electric stimulation",
author = "A. Szel{\'e}nyi and D. Langer and J. Beck and A. Raabe and Flamm, {Eugene S.} and V. Seifert and V. Deletis",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.neucli.2007.09.006",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "391--398",
journal = "Neurophysiologie Clinique",
issn = "0987-7053",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transcranial and direct cortical stimulation for motor evoked potential monitoring in intracerebral aneurysm surgery

AU - Szelényi, A.

AU - Langer, D.

AU - Beck, J.

AU - Raabe, A.

AU - Flamm, Eugene S.

AU - Seifert, V.

AU - Deletis, V.

PY - 2007/12

Y1 - 2007/12

N2 - Study aim: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. Patients and methods: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5 ± 14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5 ms, an interstimulus interval of 4 ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2 Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200 mA (TES) versus 25 mA (DCS). Results: In 95/108 (88%) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12%) patients, we observed nine (64%) temporary changes, four (29%) permanent deteriorations and one (7%) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64%) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93%) with DCS (Fishers' p = 0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57%), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33% with TES-MMEPs (p = 0.567, NS). Discussion and conclusions: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.

AB - Study aim: To analyse the parallel use of transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and direct cortical stimulation (DCS) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MMEPs) in intracranial aneurysm surgery; to correlate permanent or transient TES- and/or DCS-MMEP changes with surgical maneuvers and clinical motor outcome. Patients and methods: TES and DCS were intraoperatively performed in 108 patients (51.5 ± 14.7 years); MMEPs were obtained in muscles belonging to the vascular territory of interest. Monopolar, anodal stimulation was achieved with a train of five stimuli consisting of an individual pulse width of 0.5 ms, an interstimulus interval of 4 ms, a train repetition rate of 0.5-2 Hz, and maximum stimulation intensities up to 200 mA (TES) versus 25 mA (DCS). Results: In 95/108 (88%) patients, no changes in MMEPs occurred and none of these patients suffered a permanent severe motor deficit. In 14/108 (12%) patients, we observed nine (64%) temporary changes, four (29%) permanent deteriorations and one (7%) permanent MMEP loss. Out of 14 MMEP changes, nine (64%) occurred with TES, compared to 13 (93%) with DCS (Fishers' p = 0.165). Parallel changes in TES- and DCS-MMEPs occurred in 8/14 patients (57%), in which case a permanent loss was always followed by a permanent severe motor deficit. Sixty-seven percent of all permanent changes occurred with DCS-MMEPs, compared to 33% with TES-MMEPs (p = 0.567, NS). Discussion and conclusions: In aneurysm surgery, provided that close-to-motor-threshold stimulation and the most focal stimulating electrode montage are used, TES- and DCS-MMEPs do not differ in their capacity to detect an impending lesion of the motor cortex or its efferent pathways. TES stimulation can cause significant muscular contraction during surgery, potentially disrupting the operating surgeon. DCS maintains the singular advantage of stimulating a very focal and superficial motor cortex stimulation that does not result in patient movement.

KW - Cerebral aneurysm

KW - Direct cortical stimulation

KW - Intracerebral aneurysm

KW - Intraoperative monitoring

KW - Motor evoked potentials

KW - Postoperative motor deficit

KW - Transcranial electric stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36849091063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=36849091063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.neucli.2007.09.006

DO - 10.1016/j.neucli.2007.09.006

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 391

EP - 398

JO - Neurophysiologie Clinique

JF - Neurophysiologie Clinique

SN - 0987-7053

IS - 6

ER -