Intraoperative neuromonitoring may be valuable for predicting postoperative neurological complications, and transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) are the most reliable monitoring modality with high sensitivity. One of the most frequent problems of TcMEP monitoring is the high rate of false-positive alerts, also called “anesthetic fade.” The purpose of this study was to clarify the risk factors for false-positive TcMEP alerts and to find ways to reduce false-positive rates.
The authors analyzed 703 patients who underwent TcMEP monitoring under total intravenous anesthesia during spinal surgery within a 7-year interval. They defined an alert point as final TcMEP amplitudes ≤ 30% of the baseline. Variations in body temperature (maximum − minimum body temperature during surgery) were measured. Patients with false-positive alerts were classified into 2 groups: a global group with alerts observed in 2 or more muscles of the upper and lower extremities, and a focal group with alerts observed in 1 muscle.
False-positive alerts occurred in 100 cases (14%), comprising 60 cases with global and 40 cases with focal alerts. Compared with the 545 true-negative cases, in the false-positive cases the patients had received a significantly higher total propofol dose (1915 mg vs 1380 mg; p < 0.001). In the false-positive cases with global alerts, the patients had also received a higher mean propofol dose than those with focal alerts (4.5 mg/kg/hr vs 4.2 mg/kg/hr; p = 0.087). The cutoff value of the total propofol dose for predicting false-positive alerts, with the best sensitivity and specificity, was 1550 mg. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that a total propofol dose > 1550 mg (OR 4.583; 95% CI 2.785–7.539; p < 0.001), variation in body temperature (1°C difference; OR 1.691; 95% CI 1.060–2.465; p < 0.01), and estimated blood loss (500-ml difference; OR 1.309; 95% CI 1.155–1.484; p < 0.001) were independently associated with false-positive alerts.
Intraoperative total propofol dose > 1550 mg, larger variation in body temperature, and greater blood loss are independently associated with false-positive alerts during spinal surgery. The authors believe that these factors may contribute to the false-positive global alerts that characterize anesthetic fade. As it is necessary to consider multiple confounding factors to distinguish false-positive alerts from true-positive alerts, including variation in body temperature or ischemic condition, the authors argue the importance of a team approach that includes surgeons, anesthesiologists, and medical engineers.
ABBREVIATIONSASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists; AUC = area under the ROC curve; BIS = bispectral index; BMI = body mass index; EBL = estimated blood loss; IONM = intraoperative neuromonitoring; ROC = receiver operating characteristic; SBP = systolic blood pressure; TcMEP = transcranial motor evoked potential.
Correspondence Hiroki Ushirozako: Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan. firstname.lastname@example.org.
INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online February 8, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18322.
Disclosures Drs. Oe and Togawa belong to a donation-funded laboratory called the “Division of Geriatric Musculoskeletal Health.” Donations to this laboratory have come from Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.; Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing, Inc.; and the Meitoku Medical Institution Jyuzen Memorial Hospital. Dr. Togawa reports an employee relationship with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
InoueSKawaguchiMTakashiSKakimotoMSakamotoTKitaguchiK: Intraoperative monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials from the external anal sphincter muscle to transcranial electrical stimulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)27:E454–E4592002
JellinekDJewkesDSymonL: Noninvasive intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials under propofol anesthesia: effects of spinal surgery on the amplitude and latency of motor evoked potentials. Neurosurgery29:551–5571991
KimDHZaremskiJKwonBJenisLWoodardEBodeR: Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)32:3041–30462007
KobayashiSMatsuyamaYShinomiyaKKawabataSAndoMKanchikuT: A new alarm point of transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: a prospective multicenter study from the Spinal Cord Monitoring Working Group of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. J Neurosurg Spine20:102–1072014
LangelooDDLeliveltALouis JournéeHSlappendelRde KleuverM: Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)28:1043–10502003
PankowskiRRoclawskiMDziegielKCeynowaMMikuliczMMazurekT: Transient monoplegia as a result of unilateral femoral artery ischemia detected by multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in posterior scoliosis surgery: a case report. Medicine (Baltimore)95:e27482016
PechsteinUNadstawekJZentnerJSchrammJ: Isoflurane plus nitrous oxide versus propofol for recording of motor evoked potentials after high frequency repetitive electrical stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol108:175–1811998
RappaportMRuiz PortilloSOrtizDFountainSSKulaTAJr: Effects of stimulus intensity and duration on posterior tibial nerve somatosensory-evoked potential patterns obtained under anesthesia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)19:1525–15291994
ShidaYShidaCHiratsukaNKajiKOgataJ: High-frequency stimulation restored motor-evoked potentials to the baseline level in the upper extremities but not in the lower extremities under sevoflurane anesthesia in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol24:113–1202012
TamkusAARiceKSKimHL: Differential rates of false-positive findings in transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring when using inhalational anesthesia versus total intravenous anesthesia during spine surgeries. Spine J14:1440–14462014
ThirumalaPDCrammondDJLokeYKChengHLHuangJBalzerJR: Diagnostic accuracy of motor evoked potentials to detect neurological deficit during idiopathic scoliosis correction: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine26:374–3832017
YoshidaGAndoMImagamaSKawabataSYamadaKKanchikuT: Alert timing and corresponding intervention with intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for high risk spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)[epub ahead of print] 2018