Tetanic stimulation of the pudendal nerve prior to transcranial electrical stimulation augments the amplitude of motor evoked potentials during pediatric neurosurgery

View More View Less
  • 1 Departments of Central Operation,
  • 2 Neurosurgery, and
  • 3 Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Reportedly, tetanic stimulation prior to transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) facilitates elicitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) by a mechanism involving increased corticomotoneuronal excitability in response to somatosensory input. However, the posttetanic MEP following stimulation of a pure sensory nerve has never been reported. Furthermore, no previous reports have described posttetanic MEPs in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of posttetanic MEPs in pediatric neurosurgery patients and to compare the effects on posttetanic MEP after tetanic stimulation of the sensory branch of the pudendal nerve versus the standard median and tibial nerves, which contain a mixture of sensory and motor fibers.

METHODS

In 31 consecutive pediatric patients with a mean age of 6.0 ± 5.1 years who underwent lumbosacral surgery, MEPs were elicited by TES without tetanic stimulation (conventional MEPs [c-MEPs]) and following tetanic stimulation of the unilateral median and tibial nerves (mt-MEPs) and the sensory branch of the pudendal nerve (p-MEP). Compound muscle action potentials were elicited from abductor pollicis brevis (APB), gastrocnemius (Gc), tibialis anterior (TA), and adductor hallucis (AH) muscles. The success rate of monitoring each MEP and the increases in the ratios of mt-MEP and p-MEP to c-MEP were investigated.

RESULTS

The success rate of monitoring p-MEPs was higher than those of mt-MEPs and c-MEPs (87.5%, 72.6%, and 63.3%, respectively; p < 0.01, adjusted by Bonferroni correction). The mean increase in the ratio of p-MEP to c-MEP for all muscles was significantly higher than that of mt-MEP to c-MEP (3.64 ± 4.03 vs 1.98 ± 2.23, p < 0.01). Subanalysis of individual muscles demonstrated significant differences in the increases in the ratios between p-MEP and mt-MEP in the APB bilaterally, as well as ipsilateral Gc, contralateral TA, and bilateral AH muscles.

CONCLUSIONS

Tetanic stimulation prior to TES can augment the amplitude of MEPs during pediatric neurosurgery, the effect being larger with pudendal nerve stimulation than tetanic stimulation of the unilateral median and tibial nerves. TES elicitation of p-MEPs might be useful in pediatric patients in whom it is difficult to elicit c-MEPs.

ABBREVIATIONS AH = adductor hallucis; APB = abductor pollicis brevis; AVF = arteriovenous fistula; BCR = bulbocavernosus reflex; CMAP = compound muscle action potential; c-MEP = conventional MEP without tetanic stimulation; Gc = gastrocnemius; MEP = motor evoked potential; mt-MEP = MEP after tetanic stimulation of the unilateral median and tibial nerves; p-MEP = MEP after tetanic stimulation of the sensory branch of the pudendal nerve; TA = tibialis anterior; TES = transcranial electrical stimulation.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $505.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Yasushi Motoyama: Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan. myasushi@naramed-u.ac.jp.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online April 23, 2021; DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.PEDS20674.

Disclosures The authors report no conflict of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this study or the findings specified in this paper.

  • 1

    Motomura K, Sumita K, Chalise L, et al. Characterization of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring for surgery of the pediatric population with brain tumors. World Neurosurg. 2018;119:e1052e1059.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Chen X, Sterio D, Ming X, et al. Success rate of motor evoked potentials for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: effects of age, lesion location, and preoperative neurologic deficits. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2007;24(3):281285.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, et al. The effect of age on motor evoked potentials in children under propofol/isoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2006;103(2):316321.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Hayashi H, Kawaguchi M, Yamamoto Y, et al. The application of tetanic stimulation of the unilateral tibial nerve before transcranial stimulation can augment the amplitudes of myogenic motor-evoked potentials from the muscles in the bilateral upper and lower limbs. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(1):215220.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Hayashi H, Kawaguchi M, Yamamoto Y, et al. Evaluation of reliability of post-tetanic motor-evoked potential monitoring during spinal surgery under general anesthesia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2008;33(26):E994E1000.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Kakimoto M, Kawaguchi M, Yamamoto Y, et al. Tetanic stimulation of the peripheral nerve before transcranial electrical stimulation can enlarge amplitudes of myogenic motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(4):733738.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Yamamoto Y, Kawaguchi M, Hayashi H, et al. The effects of the neuromuscular blockade levels on amplitudes of posttetanic motor-evoked potentials and movement in response to transcranial stimulation in patients receiving propofol and fentanyl anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(3):930934.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Luft AR, Kaelin-Lang A, Hauser TK, et al. Modulation of rodent cortical motor excitability by somatosensory input. Exp Brain Res. 2002;142(4):562569.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Kaelin-Lang A, Luft AR, Sawaki L, et al. Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input. J Physiol. 2002;540(Pt 2):623633.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Gogtay N, Giedd JN, Lusk L, et al. Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during childhood through early adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(21):81748179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Sloan TB, Janik D, Jameson L. Multimodality monitoring of the central nervous system using motor-evoked potentials. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21(5):560564.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Ali HH, Savarese JJ. Monitoring of neuromuscular function. Anesthesiology. 1976;45(2):216249.

  • 13

    Wali FA, Bradshaw EG, Suer AH. Clinical assessment of neuromuscular blockade produced by vecuronium using twitch, train of four, tetanus and post-tetanic twitch responses of the adductor pollicis muscle. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1988;39(1):3542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Shigematsu H, Kawaguchi M, Hayashi H, et al. Post-tetanic transcranial motor evoked potentials augment the amplitude of compound muscle action potentials recorded from innervated and non-innervated muscles. Spine J. 2018;18(5):740746.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Andersson G, Ohlin A. Spatial facilitation of motor evoked responses in monitoring during spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol. 1999;110(4):720724.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics