• F Sala, Y Niimi, A Berenstein, and V Deletis.
• Dept. of Neurological Sciences and Vision, Section of Neurosurgery, Verona University Hospital, Piazzale Stefani 1, 37126 Verona, Italy. francescosala@yahoo.com
• Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2001 Jun 1; 939: 126-36.

AbstractThe endovascular treatment of spinal vascular malformations places the spinal cord at risk for ischemia. When these procedures are performed using general anesthesia, the neurophysiological monitoring methods currently available provide the only means by which to assess the functional integrity of sensory and motor pathways. Neurophysiological monitoring allows a warning for the neuroradiologist of impending irreversible neurological damage so that action may be taken for the prompt restoration of adequate spinal cord perfusion. Muscle motor evoked potentials (mMEPs) better reflect spinal cord perfusion in the anterior spinal artery territory than do somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), although their use during spinal endovascular procedures remains anecdotal in the literature. In the study reported here we assessed: (1) the feasibility of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring, (2) the role of provocative tests with Amytal and Xylocaine, and (3) the specific but complementary role played by SEPs and mMEPs, during endovascular embolization of spinal vascular malformations and tumors. The results suggest that: (1) neurophysiological monitoring is feasible during most endovascular procedures in the spine and spinal cord under general anesthesia, (2) provocative tests enhance the safety of the procedure, (3) mMEPs are more feasible than SEPs and more sensitive than SEPs to provocative tests. We strongly suggest the use of multimodal neurophysiological monitoring and provocative tests during the endovascular treatment of spinal and spinal cord vascular lesions.

27 keywords...

hide…