Efficacy of biphasic transcranial electric stimulation in intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring for cervical compression myelopathy

Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Feb 1;39(3):E159-65. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000082.

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients undergoing 2 methods of transcranial electrical motor evoked potential (TCE-MEP) monitoring during cervical spine surgery.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy of biphasic transcranial electric stimulation, the deviation rate, amplitude of TCE-MEPs, complications, and sensitivity and specificity of TCE-MEP monitoring were compared between the biphasic and conventional monophasic stimulation methods.

Summary of background data: With biphasic stimulation, unlike monophasic stimulation, measurement time can be reduced considerably because a single stimulation elicits bilateral responses almost simultaneously. However, no study has yet reported a detailed comparison of the 2 methods.

Methods: Examination 1: Amplitude and derivation rate of TCE-MEPs was compared for monophasic and biphasic stimulation in the same 31 patients with cervical compression myelopathy. Examination 2: Sensitivity, specificity, and complications of TCE-MEP monitoring were compared in 200 patients with cervical compression myelopathy who received monophasic or biphasic stimulation (100 patients each) during intraoperative monitoring.

Results: Examination 1: Derivation rates of biphasic stimulation in the deltoid, biceps brachii, abductor digiti minimi, and flexor hallucis brevis muscles were the same or higher than for monophasic stimulation. TCE-MEP amplitudes elicited by biphasic stimulation compared with monophasic stimulation were significantly larger in the biceps (paired t, P < 0.0001), but similar in the other 3 muscles. Examination 2: In the biphasic and monophasic stimulation groups, warnings were issued to surgeons in 10 and 11 cases, for a sensitivity of 100% for both groups and specificity of 97.8% and 96.7%, respectively. No complications related to stimulation were observed in any of the 200 patients.

Conclusion: Biphasic stimulation had similar or higher derivation rates and equivalent sensitivity and specificity than monophasic stimulation. No complications were observed for either stimulation method. Biphasic stimulation is an effective TCE-MEP monitoring method for cervical spine surgery that may also reduce measurement time.

Level of evidence: 4.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Cervical Vertebrae / pathology
  • Cervical Vertebrae / surgery*
  • Decompression, Surgical / methods*
  • Deep Brain Stimulation / methods*
  • Evoked Potentials, Motor / physiology*
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Monitoring, Intraoperative / methods*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Spinal Cord Diseases / diagnosis
  • Spinal Cord Diseases / physiopathology
  • Spinal Cord Diseases / therapy*
  • Treatment Outcome