Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: A systematic review

S E Dulfer; M C Gadella; M M Sahinovic; F Lange; A R Absalom; R J M Groen; A Szelényi; G Drost

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170

Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: A systematic review

S E Dulfer^*, M C Gadella, M M Sahinovic, F Lange, A R Absalom, R J M Groen, A Szelényi, G Drost

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

305 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to find the optimal stimulation parameters for muscle recorded transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (mTc-MEP) and D-wave monitoring during spinal cord monitoring.

METHODS: A PRISMA systematic search in Medline and EMBASE and a QUADAS-2 quality evaluation was performed to identify studies that compared stimulation parameters consisting of stimulation location, number of pulses, pulse duration, interstimulus interval, double train (DTS) or recurrent train stimulation (RTS) and intertrain interval (ITI) for performing mTc-MEP and D-wave monitoring. Only studies that used total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) were included.

RESULTS: Ten studies that compared stimulation parameters for performing mTc-MEP monitoring (stimulation location n = 4, number of pulses n = 2, pulse duration n = 1, interstimulus interval n = 4, DTS n = 1, RTS n = 2, ITI n = 2) were included. No studies compared stimulation parameters (stimulation location and pulse duration) for performing D-wave monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS: Few studies examined the optimal stimulation parameters for monitoring mTc-MEPs and no studies were included for D-wave monitoring. There is a need for prospective research to investigate the optimal stimulation parameters for mTc-MEP with the use of TIVA and D-wave monitoring.

SIGNIFICANCE: For mTc-MEP monitoring, a table is provided in which the recommended stimulation parameters are stated.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	70-80
Number of pages	11
Journal	Clinical Neurophysiology
Volume	149
Early online date	4-Mar-2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170
Publication status	Published - May-2023

Access to Document

10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170Licence: CC BY

Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoringFinal publisher's version, 859 KBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{48cef71f09034218b3d26267be2a3e72,

title = "Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: A systematic review",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to find the optimal stimulation parameters for muscle recorded transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (mTc-MEP) and D-wave monitoring during spinal cord monitoring.METHODS: A PRISMA systematic search in Medline and EMBASE and a QUADAS-2 quality evaluation was performed to identify studies that compared stimulation parameters consisting of stimulation location, number of pulses, pulse duration, interstimulus interval, double train (DTS) or recurrent train stimulation (RTS) and intertrain interval (ITI) for performing mTc-MEP and D-wave monitoring. Only studies that used total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) were included.RESULTS: Ten studies that compared stimulation parameters for performing mTc-MEP monitoring (stimulation location n = 4, number of pulses n = 2, pulse duration n = 1, interstimulus interval n = 4, DTS n = 1, RTS n = 2, ITI n = 2) were included. No studies compared stimulation parameters (stimulation location and pulse duration) for performing D-wave monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: Few studies examined the optimal stimulation parameters for monitoring mTc-MEPs and no studies were included for D-wave monitoring. There is a need for prospective research to investigate the optimal stimulation parameters for mTc-MEP with the use of TIVA and D-wave monitoring.SIGNIFICANCE: For mTc-MEP monitoring, a table is provided in which the recommended stimulation parameters are stated.",

author = "Dulfer, {S E} and Gadella, {M C} and Sahinovic, {M M} and F Lange and Absalom, {A R} and Groen, {R J M} and A Szel{\'e}nyi and G Drost",

year = "2023",

month = may,

doi = "10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170",

language = "English",

volume = "149",

pages = "70--80",

journal = "Clinical Neurophysiology",

issn = "1388-2457",

publisher = "ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Dulfer, S E

AU - Gadella, M C

AU - Sahinovic, M M

AU - Lange, F

AU - Absalom, A R

AU - Groen, R J M

AU - Szelényi, A

AU - Drost, G

PY - 2023/5

Y1 - 2023/5

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to find the optimal stimulation parameters for muscle recorded transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (mTc-MEP) and D-wave monitoring during spinal cord monitoring.METHODS: A PRISMA systematic search in Medline and EMBASE and a QUADAS-2 quality evaluation was performed to identify studies that compared stimulation parameters consisting of stimulation location, number of pulses, pulse duration, interstimulus interval, double train (DTS) or recurrent train stimulation (RTS) and intertrain interval (ITI) for performing mTc-MEP and D-wave monitoring. Only studies that used total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) were included.RESULTS: Ten studies that compared stimulation parameters for performing mTc-MEP monitoring (stimulation location n = 4, number of pulses n = 2, pulse duration n = 1, interstimulus interval n = 4, DTS n = 1, RTS n = 2, ITI n = 2) were included. No studies compared stimulation parameters (stimulation location and pulse duration) for performing D-wave monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: Few studies examined the optimal stimulation parameters for monitoring mTc-MEPs and no studies were included for D-wave monitoring. There is a need for prospective research to investigate the optimal stimulation parameters for mTc-MEP with the use of TIVA and D-wave monitoring.SIGNIFICANCE: For mTc-MEP monitoring, a table is provided in which the recommended stimulation parameters are stated.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to find the optimal stimulation parameters for muscle recorded transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (mTc-MEP) and D-wave monitoring during spinal cord monitoring.METHODS: A PRISMA systematic search in Medline and EMBASE and a QUADAS-2 quality evaluation was performed to identify studies that compared stimulation parameters consisting of stimulation location, number of pulses, pulse duration, interstimulus interval, double train (DTS) or recurrent train stimulation (RTS) and intertrain interval (ITI) for performing mTc-MEP and D-wave monitoring. Only studies that used total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) were included.RESULTS: Ten studies that compared stimulation parameters for performing mTc-MEP monitoring (stimulation location n = 4, number of pulses n = 2, pulse duration n = 1, interstimulus interval n = 4, DTS n = 1, RTS n = 2, ITI n = 2) were included. No studies compared stimulation parameters (stimulation location and pulse duration) for performing D-wave monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: Few studies examined the optimal stimulation parameters for monitoring mTc-MEPs and no studies were included for D-wave monitoring. There is a need for prospective research to investigate the optimal stimulation parameters for mTc-MEP with the use of TIVA and D-wave monitoring.SIGNIFICANCE: For mTc-MEP monitoring, a table is provided in which the recommended stimulation parameters are stated.

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170

DO - 10.1016/j.clinph.2023.02.170

M3 - Article

C2 - 36924672

SN - 1388-2457

VL - 149

SP - 70

EP - 80

JO - Clinical Neurophysiology

JF - Clinical Neurophysiology

ER -

Stimulation parameters for motor evoked potentials during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: A systematic review

Abstract

Access to Document

Handle.net

Fingerprint

Cite this