Characteristics of false-positive alerts on transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring during pediatric scoliosis and adult spinal deformity surgery: an “anesthetic fade” phenomenon

Restricted access

OBJECTIVE

Transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring may be valuable for predicting postoperative neurological complications with a high sensitivity and specificity, but one of the most frequent problems is the high false-positive rate. The purpose of this study was to clarify the differences in the risk factors for false-positive TcMEP alerts seen when performing surgery in patients with pediatric scoliosis and adult spinal deformity and to identify a method to reduce the false-positive rate.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed 393 patients (282 adult and 111 pediatric patients) who underwent TcMEP monitoring while under total intravenous anesthesia during spinal deformity surgery. They defined their cutoff (alert) point as a final TcMEP amplitude of ≤ 30% of the baseline amplitude. Patients with false-positive alerts were classified into one of two groups: a group with pediatric scoliosis and a group with adult spinal deformity.

RESULTS

There were 14 cases of false-positive alerts (13%) during pediatric scoliosis surgery and 62 cases of false-positive alerts (22%) during adult spinal deformity surgery. Compared to the true-negative cases during adult spinal deformity surgery, the false-positive cases had a significantly longer duration of surgery and greater estimated blood loss (both p < 0.001). Compared to the true-negative cases during pediatric scoliosis surgery, the false-positive cases had received a significantly higher total fentanyl dose and a higher mean propofol dose (0.75 ± 0.32 mg vs 0.51 ± 0.18 mg [p = 0.014] and 5.6 ± 0.8 mg/kg/hr vs 5.0 ± 0.7 mg/kg/hr [p = 0.009], respectively). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the duration of surgery (1-hour difference: OR 1.701; 95% CI 1.364–2.120; p < 0.001) was independently associated with false-positive alerts during adult spinal deformity surgery. A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the mean propofol dose (1-mg/kg/hr difference: OR 3.117; 95% CI 1.196–8.123; p = 0.020), the total fentanyl dose (0.05-mg difference; OR 1.270; 95% CI 1.078–1.497; p = 0.004), and the duration of surgery (1-hour difference: OR 2.685; 95% CI 1.131–6.377; p = 0.025) were independently associated with false-positive alerts during pediatric scoliosis surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer duration of surgery and greater blood loss are more likely to result in false-positive alerts during adult spinal deformity surgery. In particular, anesthetic doses were associated with false-positive TcMEP alerts during pediatric scoliosis surgery. The authors believe that false-positive alerts during pediatric scoliosis surgery, in particular, are caused by “anesthetic fade.”

ABBREVIATIONS ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists; BIS = bispectral index; BMI = body mass index; BT = body temperature; EBL = estimated blood loss; IONM = intraoperative neuromonitoring; SBP = systolic blood pressure; TcMEP = transcranial motor evoked potential.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Hiroki Ushirozako: Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Shizuoka, Japan. verisa0808@gmail.com.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online November 22, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19814.Disclosures Drs. Oe and Yamato belong to a donation-funded laboratory called the Division of Geriatric Musculoskeletal Health. Donations to this laboratory have been received from Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.; Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing, Inc.; and the Meitoku Medical Institution Jyuzen Memorial Hospital.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Anderson GD: Children versus adults: pharmacokinetic and adverse-effect differences. Epilepsia 43 (Suppl 3):53592002

  • 2

    Bray RJ: Propofol infusion syndrome in children. Paediatr Anaesth 8:4914991998

  • 3

    Devlin VJAnderson PASchwartz DMVaughan R: Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: focus on cervical myelopathy and related issues. Spine J 6 (6 Suppl):212S224S2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Fehlings MGBrodke DSNorvell DCDettori JR: The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 (9 Suppl):S37S462010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Glassman SDHamill CLBridwell KHSchwab FJDimar JRLowe TG: The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:276427702007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Hiraoka HYamamoto KMiyoshi SMorita TNakamura KKadoi Y: Kidneys contribute to the extrahepatic clearance of propofol in humans, but not lungs and brain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 60:1761822005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Holdefer RNAnderson CFurman MSangare YSlimp JC: A comparison of the effects of desflurane versus propofol on transcranial motor-evoked potentials in pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst 30:210321082014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Inoue SKawaguchi MTakashi SKakimoto MSakamoto TKitaguchi K: Intraoperative monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials from the external anal sphincter muscle to transcranial electrical stimulation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:E454E4592002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Jellinek DJewkes DSymon L: Noninvasive intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials under propofol anesthesia: effects of spinal surgery on the amplitude and latency of motor evoked potentials. Neurosurgery 29:5515571991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Johnson KBEgan TDKern SEMcJames SWCluff MLPace NL: Influence of hemorrhagic shock followed by crystalloid resuscitation on propofol: a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology 101:6476592004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Johnson KBEgan TDKern SEWhite JLMcJames SWSyroid N: The influence of hemorrhagic shock on propofol: a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. Anesthesiology 99:4094202003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Kawaguchi MFuruya H: Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring of motor function with myogenic motor evoked potentials: a consideration in anesthesia. J Anesth 18:18282004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Kim DHZaremski JKwon BJenis LWoodard EBode R: Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:304130462007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Kirkpatrick TCockshott IDDouglas EJNimmo WS: Pharmacokinetics of propofol (diprivan) in elderly patients. Br J Anaesth 60:1461501988

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Kobayashi KImagama SIto ZAndo KHida TIto K: Transcranial motor evoked potential waveform changes in corrective fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Neurosurg Pediatr 19:1081152017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Kobayashi SMatsuyama YShinomiya KKawabata SAndo MKanchiku T: 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 Spine 20:1021072014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Kurita TMorita KKazama TSato S: Influence of cardiac output on plasma propofol concentrations during constant infusion in swine. Anesthesiology 96:149815032002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Kurita TTakata KMorita KMorishima YUraoka MKatoh T: The influence of hemorrhagic shock on the electroencephalographic and immobilizing effects of propofol in a swine model. Anesth Analg 109:3984042009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Kurita TUraoka MMorita KSuzuki MMorishima YSato S: Influence of haemorrhage on the pseudo-steady-state remifentanil concentration in a swine model: a comparison with propofol and the effect of haemorrhagic shock stage. Br J Anaesth 107:7197252011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Lieberman JAFeiner JRollins MLyon RJasiukaitis P: Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during hemorrhage are associated with increased serum propofol concentrations. J Clin Monit Comput 32:5415482018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Lieberman JALyon RFeiner JHu SSBerven SH: The efficacy of motor evoked potentials in fixed sagittal imbalance deformity correction surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:E414E4242008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Lyon RFeiner JLieberman JA: Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of “anesthetic fade.” J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 17:13192005

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    MacDonald DB: Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 19:4164292002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Macdonald DBSkinner SShils JYingling C: Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring—a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 124:229123162013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Nathan NTabaraud FLacroix FMouliès DViviand XLansade A: Influence of propofol concentrations on multipulse transcranial motor evoked potentials. Br J Anaesth 91:4934972003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Othman ZLenke LGBolon SMPadberg A: Hypotension-induced loss of intraoperative monitoring data during surgical correction of scheuermann kyphosis: a case report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29:E258E2652004

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Owens WDFelts JASpitznagel EL Jr: ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 49:2392431978

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Pechstein UCedzich CNadstawek JSchramm J: Transcranial high-frequency repetitive electrical stimulation for recording myogenic motor evoked potentials with the patient under general anesthesia. Neurosurgery 39:3353441996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Rappaport MRuiz Portillo SOrtiz DFountain SSKula TA Jr: Effects of stimulus intensity and duration on posterior tibial nerve somatosensory-evoked potential patterns obtained under anesthesia. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:152515291994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Richards CD: Actions of general anaesthetics on synaptic transmission in the CNS. Br J Anaesth 55:2012071983

  • 31

    Scheufler KMZentner J: Total intravenous anesthesia for intraoperative monitoring of the motor pathways: an integral view combining clinical and experimental data. J Neurosurg 96:5715792002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Schnider TWMinto CFShafer SLGambus PLAndresen CGoodale DB: The influence of age on propofol pharmacodynamics. Anesthesiology 90:150215161999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Shida YShida CHiratsuka NKaji KOgata J: 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 Anesthesiol 24:1131202012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Sloan TB: Anesthetic effects on electrophysiologic recordings. J Clin Neurophysiol 15:2172261998

  • 35

    Sutter MAEggspuehler AGrob DPorchet FJeszenszky DDvorak J: Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during 409 lumbosacral surgical procedures in 409 patients. Eur Spine J 16 (Suppl 2):S221S2282007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Tamkus AARice KSKim HL: 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 J 14:144014462014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Thirumala PDCrammond DJLoke YKCheng HLHuang JBalzer JR: Diagnostic accuracy of motor evoked potentials to detect neurological deficit during idiopathic scoliosis correction: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 26:3743832017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Ushirozako HYoshida GKobayashi SHasegawa TYamato YYasuda T: Impact of total propofol dose during spinal surgery: anesthetic fade on transcranial motor evoked potentials. J Neurosurg Spine 30:7057132019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Ushirozako HYoshida GKobayashi SHasegawa TYamato YYasuda T: Transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring for the detection of nerve root injury during adult spinal deformity surgery. Asian Spine J 12:6396472018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Yoshida GAndo MImagama SKawabata SYamada KKanchiku T: Alert timing and corresponding intervention with intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for high-risk spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 44:E470E4792019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Yoshida GUshirozako HKobayashi SHasegawa TYamato YBanno T: Intraoperative neuromonitoring during adult spinal deformity surgery: alert-positive cases for various surgical procedures. Spine Deform 7:1321402019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42

    Ziewacz JEBerven SHMummaneni VPTu THAkinbo OCLyon R: The design, development, and implementation of a checklist for intraoperative neuromonitoring changes. Neurosurg Focus 33(5):E112012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Zuccaro MZuccaro JSamdani AFPahys JMHwang SW: Intraoperative neuromonitoring alerts in a pediatric deformity center. Neurosurg Focus 43(4):E82017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
TrendMD
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 247 247 247
Full Text Views 212 212 212
PDF Downloads 25 25 25
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar