Dyskinesia predictive value of motor-evoked potential in gliomas surgery close to motor area under general anesthesia

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2020.11.006

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To determine the predictive value of intraoperative motor-evoked potential(MEP) on the muscle strength of patients undergoing glioma close to motor area under general anesthesia. Methods A total of 49 patients were included in this study from October 2019 to March 2020. The transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), direct cortical stimulation (DCS) and subcortical stimulation (SCS) were used to locate the motor cortex and corticospinal tract (CST), and to assess the functional integrity of motor system. A decrease of ≥ 50% of the baseline amplitude of TES or DCS was regarded as an alarm criteria. Muscle strength was evaluated with "gold standard" the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale before and after operation. Results Combined application of TES-MEP, DCS-MEP and SCS-MEP had better results in judging the integrity of motor conduction pathway. The sensitivity and specificity of TES-MEP were 2/5 and 100% (44/44), the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 2/2 and 93.62% (44/47), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of DCS-MEP were 1/1 and 10/10, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 1/1 and 10/10, respectively. There were 5 cases (10.20%) with new dyskinesia after operation. After 3 months of follow-up, muscle strength of one case returned to normal. The sensitivity and specificity of TES-MEP were 2/4 and 100% (45/45), the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 2/2 and 95.74% (45/47), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of DCS-MEP were 1/1 and 10/10, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 1/1 and 10/10, respectively. Conclusions This study indicates a high false negative rate after TES-MEP, DCS-MEP results were more consistent with postoperative motor function results, but the utilization rate was low due to the lack of exposure to the precentral gyrus cortex. Combined application of TES-MEP, DCS-MEP and SCS-MEP are more effective in judging the integrity of motor conduction pathway.

Key words: Anesthesia, general, Evoked potentials, motor, Electric stimulation, Glioma, Neurosurgical procedures

摘要：

目的探讨全身麻醉状态下邻近运动功能区胶质瘤手术中运动诱发电位（MEP）监测对术后新发/加重运动障碍的预测价值。方法以2019年10月至2020年3月接受邻近运动功能区胶质瘤手术的49例患者为研究对象，术中采取经颅电刺激（TES）、直接皮质电刺激（DCS）或皮质下电刺激（SCS），记录对侧肢体和面部肌肉的运动诱发电位，以定位大脑运动皮质和皮质脊髓束。运动诱发电位的预警标准为TES-MEP波幅降低≥ 50%或DCS-MEP波幅降低≥ 50%；以英国医学研究学会（MRC）肌力分级为“金标准”，计算TES-MEP、DCS-MEP和SCS-MEP预测术后新发/加重运动障碍的灵敏度与特异度、阳性预测值与阴性预测值。结果 49例患者均诱发出TES-MEP，真阳性2例、真阴性44例、假阴性3例；有11例诱发出DCS-MEP，真阳性1例、真阴性10例；TES-MEP预测术后新发/加重运动障碍灵敏度为2/5、特异度100%（44/44）、阳性预测值为2/2、阴性预测值93.62%（44/47）；DCS-MEP预测灵敏度为1/1、特异度10/10，阳性预测值为1/1、阴性预测值10/10。共5例（10.20%）患者术后出现新发/加重运动障碍，随访至术后3个月，1例肌力恢复正常；TES-MEP预测灵敏度为2/4、特异度100%（45/45），阳性预测值为2/2、阴性预测值95.74%（45/47）；DCS-MEP预测灵敏度为1/1、特异度10/10，阳性预测值为1/1、阴性预测值10/10。结论术中TES-MEP监测假阴性率较高，DCS-MEP与术后运动功能预后一致性较高，但是由于无法显露中央前回皮质使其应用率较低。推荐联合应用TES-MEP、DCS-MEP和SCS-MEP判断运动传导通路完整性，效果更佳。

关键词: 麻醉, 全身, 诱发电位, 运动, 电刺激, 神经胶质瘤, 神经外科手术

ZONG Yi-xuan, SHEN Qi, XIAO Ming, FANG Yuan, MAO Qing. Dyskinesia predictive value of motor-evoked potential in gliomas surgery close to motor area under general anesthesia[J]. Chinese Journal of Contemporary Neurology and Neurosurgery, 2020, 20(11): 962-969.

宗轶烜, 沈琦, 肖明, 方媛, 毛庆. 全身麻醉下运动诱发电位对邻近运动功能区胶质瘤手术后运动障碍的预测价值[J]. 中国现代神经疾病杂志, 2020, 20(11): 962-969.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: https://journal11.magtechjournal.com/cjcnn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1672-6731.2020.11.006

https://journal11.magtechjournal.com/cjcnn/EN/Y2020/V20/I11/962

References

[1] National Health Commission Medical Administration and Hospital Authority. Diagnosis and treatment of gliomas (2018 Edition)[J]. Zhonghua Shen Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2019, 35:217-239.[国家卫生健康委员会医政医管局. 脑胶质瘤诊疗规范(2018版)[J]. 中华神经外科杂志, 2019, 35:217-239.]
[2] Macdonald DB. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring:overview and update[J]. J Clin Monit Comput, 2006, 20:347-377.
[3] Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C; American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring-aposition statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring[J]. Clin Neurophysiol, 2013, 124:2291-2316.
[4] Penfield W, Boldrey E. Somatic motor and sensory representation in the cerebral cortex of man as studied by electrical stimulation[J]. Brain, 1937, 60:389-443.
[5] Taniguchi M, Cedzich C, Schramm J. Modification of cortical stimulation for motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia:technical description[J]. Neurosurgery, 1993, 32:219-226.
[6] Schucht P, Seidel K, Jilch A, Beck J, Raabe A. A review of monopolar motor mapping and a comprehensive guide to continuous dynamic motor mapping for resection of motor eloquent brain tumors[J]. Neurochirurgie, 2017, 63:175-180.
[7] De Witt Hamer PC, Robles SG, Zwinderman AH, Duffau H, Berger MS. Impact of intraoperative stimulation brain mapping on glioma surgery outcome:a meta-analysis[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2012, 30:2559-2565.
[8] Neuloh G, Pechstein U, Cedzich C, Schramm J. Motor evoked potential monitoring with supratentorial surgery[J]. Neurosurgery, 2007, 61(1 Suppl):337-346.
[9] Moiyadi A, Velayutham P, Shetty P, Seidel K, Janu A, Madhugiri V, Singh VK, Patil A, John R. Combined motor evoked potential monitoring and subcortical dynamic mapping in motor eloquent tumors allows safer and extended resections[J]. World Neurosurg, 2018, 120:e259-268.
[10] Gogos AJ, Young JS, Morshed RA, Avalos LN, Noss RS, Villanueva-Meyer JE, Hervey-Jumper SL, Berger MS. Triple motor mapping:transcranial, bipolar, and monopolar mapping for supratentorial glioma resection adjacent to motor pathways[J]. J Neurosurg, 2020.[Epub ahead of print]
[11] Boex C, Haemmerli J, Momjian S, Schaller K. Prognosticvalues of motor evoked potentials in insular, precental, or postcentral resections[J]. J Clin Neurophysiol, 2016, 33:51-59.
[12] Rothwell J, Burke D, Hicks R, Stephen J, Woodforth I, Crawford M. Transcranial electrical stimulation of the motor cortex in man:further evidence for the site of activation[J]. J Physiol, 1994, 481:243-250.
[13] Zhou HH, Kelly PJ. Transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring for brain tumor resection[J]. Neurosurgery, 2001, 48:1075-1081.
[14] Abboud T, Schaper M, Dührsen L, Schwarz C, Schmidt NO, Westphal M, Martens T. A novel threshold criterion in transcranial motor evoked potentials during surgery for gliomas close to the motor pathway[J]. J Neurosurg, 2016, 125:795-802.
[15] Seidel K, Beck J, Stieglitz L, Schucht P, Raabe A. The warning-sign hierarchy between quantitative subcortical motor mapping and continuous motor evoked potential monitoring during resection of supratentorial brain tumors[J]. J Neurosurg, 2013, 118:287-296.
[16] Krieg SM, Schäffner M, Shiban E, Droese D, Obermüller T, Gempt J, Meyer B, Ringel F. Reliability of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using motor evoked potentials during resection of metastases in motor-eloquent brain regions:clinical article[J]. J Neurosurg, 2013, 118:1269-1278.
[17] Okamoto E, Ishikawa E, Yamamoto T, Matsuda M, Nakai K, Matsushita A, Masuda Y, Akutsu H, Ayuzawa S, Sakamaki F, Matsumoto Y, Matsumura A. Variability in amplitude and stimulation threshold values in motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during the resection of brain lesions[J]. Clin Neurophysiol, 2015, 126:1271-1278.
[18] Javadi SA, Nabavi A, Giordano M, Faghihzadeh E, Samii A. Evaluation of diffusion tensor imaging-based tractography of the corticospinal tract:a correlative study with intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging and direct electrical subcortical stimulation[J]. Neurosurgery, 2017, 80:287-299.
[19] Plans G, Fernández-Conejero I, Rifà-Ros X, Fernández-Coello A, Rosselló A, Gabarrós A. Evaluation of the high-frequency monopolar stimulation technique for mapping and monitoring the corticospinal tract in patients with supratentorial gliomas:a proposal for intraoperative management based on neurophysiological data analysis in a series of 92 patients[J]. Neurosurgery, 2017, 81:585-594.
[20] Suarez-Meade P, Marenco-Hillembrand L, Prevatt C, Murguia-Fuentes R, Mohamed A, Alsaeed T, Lehrer EJ, Brigham T, Ruiz-Garcia H, Sabsevitz D, Middlebrooks EH, Bechtle PS, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Chaichana KL. Awake vs. asleep motor mapping for glioma resection:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2020, 162:1709-1720.
[21] Rech F, Herbet G, Gaudeau Y, Mézières S, Moureau JM, Moritz-Gasser S, Duffau H. A probabilistic map of negative motor areas of the upper limb and face:a brain stimulation study[J]. Brain, 2019, 142:952-965.
[22] Shirota Y, Hanajima R, Ohminami S, Tsutsumi R, Ugawa Y, Terao Y. Supplementary motor area plays a causal role in automatic inhibition of motor responses[J]. Brain Stimul, 2019,12:1020-1026.
[23] Saito T, Muragaki Y, Tamura M, Maruyama T, Nitta M, Tsuzuki S, Fukuchi S, Ohashi M, Kawamata T. Awake craniotomy with transcortical motor evoked potential monitoring for resection of gliomas in the precentral gyrus:utility for predicting motor function[J]. J Neurosurg, 2019.[Epub ahead of print]
[24] Szelényi A, Senft C, Jardan M, Forster MT, Franz K, Seifert V, Vatter H. Intra-operative subcortical electrical stimulation:a comparison of two methods[J]. Clin Neurophysiol, 2011, 122:1470-1475.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export