• I-Ming Jou, Tai-Chang Chern, Tsung-Ying Chen, and Yu-Chuan Tsai.
• Department of Orthopedics, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. jming@mail.ncku.edu.tw
• Spine. 2003 Aug 15;28(16):1845-50.

Study DesignSpinal somatosensory-evoked potential (interspinous-space-recorded evoked potentials after peripheral nerve or dermatomal stimulation) and conductive spinal cord evoked potential (interspinous-space-recorded evoked potentials after spinal cord stimulation) were analyzed in rats under different concentrations of the anesthetic desflurane.ObjectivesTo investigate and compare the effects of a new volatile anesthetic, desflurane, on the common intraoperative neuromonitoring models.Summary Of Background DataIntraoperative evoked potentials are sensitive to most anesthetics. Interpretation of the data becomes complicated because of a suppression effect caused by the anesthesia. Desflurane has become a valuable anesthetic in neurosurgery because of its pharmacokinetic advantages.MethodsFifteen rats were placed under general anesthesia, and vital signs were closely monitored. Needle recording electrodes were placed stereotactically into the thoracolumbar interspinous ligament; dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potential by L5 dermatome, mixed-nerve somatosensory-evoked potential by sciatic nerve stimulation, and spinal cord evoked potential of the same recording electrodes elicited by C2-C3 interspinous stimulation were obtained. The effects of desflurane were examined at end-tidal concentrations of 6% (1.05 minimal alveolar concentration), 9% (1.57 minimal alveolar concentration), and 12% (2.10 minimal alveolar concentration).ResultsAmplitude decreased and latency was delayed in all three kinds of potentials, and the more so with higher concentrations. Comparing 9% with 6% desflurane, the amplitude in dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potential, mixed-nerve somatosensory-evoked potential, and spinal cord evoked potential decreased to 84.3%, 88.9%, and 70.8%, respectively, values with no statistically significant difference. However, at 12%, again compared with 6%, the amplitude decreased further to 64.4%, 70.3%, 41.8%, respectively; mixed-nerve somatosensory-evoked potential and dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potential were significantly more preserved than spinal cord evoked potential (P = 0.04).ConclusionsThe concentration of desflurane alters the amplitude of somatosensory-evoked potential and spinal cord evoked potential, and, to a lesser degree, delays the latency; spinal cord evoked potential is more liable to be suppressed than somatosensory-evoked potential. The dose-dependent suppression effect on amplitude should be considered when interpreting changes during surgery. Furthermore, the potential benefit of somatosensory-evoked potential elicited by direct major nerve stimulation should be considered because of its large amplitude and higher resistance, even with a greater concentration of volatile anesthetics.

20 keywords...

hide…