Transcranial Electric Stimulation for Intraoperative Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring: Dependence of Required Stimulation Current on Interstimulus Interval Value

Abstract

Study Objective To evaluate the relationship between stimulus intensity by constant current transcranial electric stimulation and interstimulus interval (ISI) for eliciting muscle motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in three different hand muscles and the tibialis anterior muscles.

Patients/Material and Methods We tested intraoperatively different monophasic constant current pulses and ISIs in 22 patients with clinically normal motor function. Motor thresholds of contralateral muscle MEPs were determined at 0.5 milliseconds (ms) pulse duration and ISIs of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 ms using a train of 2, 3, and 5 monophasic constant current pulses of 62 to 104 mA before craniotomy and after closure of the dura mater.

Results The lowest stimulation threshold to elicit MEPs in the examined muscles was achieved with a train of 5 pulses (ISI: 3 ms) before craniotomy, which was statistically significant compared with 2 pulses (ISI: 3 ms) as well as 3 pulses (ISIs: 3 and 10 ms). An ISI of 3 ms gave the lowest motor thresholds with statistical significance compared with the ISIs of 4 ms (2 pulses) and of 1 ms (3 pulses). All current intensity (mA) and ISI (ms) relationship graphs had a trend of the exponential function as y = a + bx + c ρ ^x , where y is intensity (mA) and x is ISI (ms). The minimum of the function was determined for each patient and each muscle. The difference was statistically significant between 3 and 5 pulses before craniotomy and between 3 and 5 pulses and 2 and 5 pulses after closure of the dura mater.

Conclusion In adult neurosurgical patients with a normal motor status, a train of 5 pulses and an ISI of 3 ms provide the lowest motor thresholds. We provided evidence of the dependence of required stimulation current on ISI.

Keywords

intraoperative motor evoked potentials - stimulation parameters - transcranial electric stimulation

• References

• 1 Taniguchi M, Cedzich C, Schramm J. Modification of cortical stimulation for motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia: technical description. Neurosurgery 1993; 32 (2) 219-226
• 2 Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C ; American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124 (12) 2291-2316
• 3 van Hal C, Hoebink E, Polak HE, Racz I, de Kleuver M, Journee HL. Optimum interpulse interval for transcranial electrical train stimulation to elicit motor evoked potentials of maximal amplitude in both upper and lower extremity target muscles. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124 (10) 2054-2059
• 4 Calancie B, Harris W, Broton JG, Alexeeva N, Green BA. “Threshold-level” multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: description of method and comparison to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 1998; 88 (3) 457-470
• 5 Calancie B, Harris W, Brindle GF, Green BA, Landy HJ. Threshold-level repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation for intraoperative monitoring of central motor conduction. J Neurosurg 2001; 95 (2, Suppl): 161-168
• 6 Dong CC, Macdonald DB, Akagami R , et al. Intraoperative facial motor evoked potential monitoring with transcranial electrical stimulation during skull base surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (3) 588-596
• 7 Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G , et al. Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurgery 2005; 56 (5) 982-993 ; discussion 982–993
• 8 Deletis V, Isgum V, Amassian VE. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor evoked potentials in anesthetized humans. Part 1. Recovery time of corticospinal tract direct waves elicited by pairs of transcranial electrical stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol 2001a; 112 (3) 438-444
• 9 Deletis V, Rodi Z, Amassian VE. Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying motor evoked potentials in anesthetized humans. Part 2. Relationship between epidurally and muscle recorded MEPs in man. Clin Neurophysiol 2001b; 112 (3) 445-452
• 10 Szelényi A, Kothbauer KF, Deletis V. Transcranial electric stimulation for intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: stimulation parameters and electrode montages. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118 (7) 1586-1595
• 11 Scheufler KM, Reinacher PC, Blumrich W, Zentner J, Priebe HJ. The modifying effects of stimulation pattern and propofol plasma concentration on motor-evoked potentials. Anesth Analg 2005; 100 (2) 440-447
• 12 Nuwer MR, Comi G, Emerson R , et al; International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. IFCN standards for digital recording of clinical EEG. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 106 (3) 259-261
• 13 Brocke J, Irlbacher K, Hauptmann B, Voss M, Brandt SA. Transcranial magnetic and electrical stimulation compared: does TES activate intracortical neuronal circuits?. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (12) 2748-2756
• 14 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 Physiol 1994; 481 (Pt 1) 243-250
• 15 Hicks R, Burke D, Stephen J, Woodforth I, Crawford M. Corticospinal volleys evoked by electrical stimulation of human motor cortex after withdrawal of volatile anaesthetics. J Physiol 1992; 456: 393-404
• 16 Kalkman CJ, Drummond JC, Ribberink AA, Patel PM, Sano T, Bickford RG. Effects of propofol, etomidate, midazolam, and fentanyl on motor evoked responses to transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation in humans. Anesthesiology 1992; 76 (4) 502-509
• 17 Ubags LH, Kalkman CJ, Been HD. Influence of isoflurane on myogenic motor evoked potentials to single and multiple transcranial stimuli during nitrous oxide/opioid anesthesia. Neurosurgery 1998; 43 (1) 90-94 ; discussion 94–95