ArticleJournal of anesthesia2025
Transesophageal motor-evoked potentials, a novel method induced by transesophageal spinal cord stimulation, are less sensitive to anesthetics than transcranial motor-evoked potentials.
Article in Journal of anesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of hemorrhage, fluid resuscitation, and transient deep anesthesia on transcranial and transesophageal motor evoked potentials in a swine model.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
- Detection of motor pathway suppression by transcranial and transesophageal motor-evoked potentials during thoracic epidural anesthesia.Journal of anesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntraoperative neurologic monitoring can be useful, but transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) are sensitive to anesthetic agents. We compared the effects of anesthetics on the newly developed transesophageal motor evoked potentials (TeMEPs) with those on TcMEPs.
methodsEleven pigs (25.6 ± 0.8 kg) were anesthetized by desflurane inhalation, remifentanil was maintained at 0.5 µg/kg/min until the end of the experiment. End-tidal desflurane concentration was then maintained at 7, 4, 10, and 13%, and TcMEPs and TeMEPs were measured at each concentration. Desflurane was then discontinued and propofol was infused at 10, 20, 40, and 60 mg/kg/h, and TcMEPs and TeMEPs were measured at each infusion dose. An electroencephalogram monitor was used to measure the hypnotic level.
resultsBoth desflurane and propofol anesthesia decreased bispectral index in a dose-dependent manner (P < 0.0001), replicating shallow (or adequate) to deep hypnotic levels in both anesthetic methods. The amplitude of TeMEPs was clearly larger than that of TcMEPs and was significantly larger at all anesthetic depths and all limb sites (P < 0.0001). Amplitudes of the lower extremities were lower than those of the upper extremities (P < 0.0001) for both TcMEPs and TeMEPs, but the amplitudes of TeMEPs were sufficiently large under desflurane as under propofol. The trend of concentration-dependent decrease in the amplitudes of TeMEPs under both anesthetics was not as apparent as in that of TcMEPs.
conclusionsTeMEPs are more tolerant to anesthesia than TcMEPs and may be a promising MEP monitoring technique for the lower corticospinal tract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39674976What 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.