• Yu-guang Chen, Xin-sheng Peng, Yong Wan, Jun-lin Yang, Zhao-min Zheng, Xue-nong Zou, Fo-bao Li, Hai-hua Shu, Jie-hua Xia, and Yun-ling Dou.
• Department of Spinal Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
• Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2010 Feb 1; 48 (3): 209-12.

ObjectiveTo evaluate of the role of transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (TES-MEP) in combination with cortical somatosensory evoked potential (CSEP) monitoring during the spinal surgery.MethodsTES-MEP on bilateral anterior tibial muscle and flexor hallucal brevis and CSEP on bilateral posterior tibial nerve were observed simultaneously on 293 patients during spinal surgery from July 2006 to April 2009. Intravenous anesthesia was employed in all the patients, a part of which were added low dose of sevoflurane or muscle relaxant. The results of TES-MEP, CSEP and combined monitoring were analyzed statistically. Pre-operative and post-operative motor and sensory functions of spinal cord were compared.ResultsSuccess rate of TES-MEP, CSEP and combined monitoring was 90.8%, 96.9% and 100% respectively. For the judgment of motor function of spinal cord, the sensitivity of TES-MEP and CSEP was 100% and 89.3% respectively and the specificity of 98.4% and 96.9%. The Youden index of the two methods was 0.984 and 0.862. For sensory function, the sensitivity of them was 76.7% and 93.3% respectively and the specificity of 98.7% and 98.0%. The Youden index was 0.754 and 0.913. The sensitivity of combined monitoring was 100%, with the specificity of 96.9%. The Youden index was 0.969.ConclusionsThe precision of monitoring motor function of spinal cord with TES-MEP is higher than that with CSEP, however, for sensory function, CSEP is more precise. The sensitivity and precision of combined monitoring for spinal cord function were apparently better than that of unitary TES-MEP or CSEP. The combined TES-MEP and CSEP monitoring is a relatively ideal method.

24 keywords...

hide…