ArticleActa neurochirurgica2024
Does persistent crossover (ipsilateral) motor evoked potential (MEP) responses represent a technical failure for intracranial motor tract monitoring? A case example and practical solution.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAttention to motor evoked potential (MEP) stimulation intensity is necessary to avoid false negative MEP results during intracranial procedures. Observing ipsilateral (crossover) MEP responses has been hypothesized to indicate inappropriately strong stimulation intensity. We describe a case where persistent crossover MEP responses falsely suggested that stimulus intensity was too high and describe an alternative method to guide the selection of MEP stimulation intensity.
methodsA patient undergoing a suboccipital craniotomy for tumor resection had bilateral transcranial electrical MEP monitoring under total intravenous anesthesia. MEP results were obtained from left and right hand using C4-Cz and C3-Cz stimulation montages respectively. Selection of an appropriately superficial stimulus intensity was guided using MEP onset latencies.
resultsMEP acquisition proceeded normally for contralateral left hand (C4-Cz montage). However, using the C3-Cz montage, persistent crossover responses were noted at stimulation intensities as low as threshold for contralateral right hand MEP (94 V/166 mA). Appropriate MEP stimulus intensity for subsequent monitoring (approximately 96 V/172 mA) was determined utilizing onset latency measurements from contralateral hand MEP responses. The stimulus intensity chosen was predicated on onset latency being ≥ 2 ms longer than latency at maximal stimulus level (shortest latency). A stimulus intensity-latency plot was generated offline to illustrate this important relationship for intracranial MEP use. MEP acquisition proceeded without incident and gross total resection was achieved without postoperative motor deficits.
conclusionDespite crossover appearance contralateral hand MEP were quantitatively validated for intraoperative application using onset latency guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39641813What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.