Strategies and Pitfalls of Motor-Evoked Potential Monitoring during Supratentorial Aneurysm Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to reveal the strategies and pitfalls of motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring methods during supratentorial aneurysm surgery, and to discuss the drawbacks and advantages of each method by reviewing our experiences. METHODS: Intraoperative MEP monitoring was performed in 250 patients. Results from 4 monitoring techniques using combinations of 2 stimulation sites and 2 recording sites were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: MEP was recorded successfully in 243 patients (97.2%). Direct cortical stimulation (DCS)-spinal recorded MEP (sMEP) was used in 134 patients, DCS-muscle recorded MEP (mMEP) in 97, transcranial electrical stimulation (TES)-mMEP in 11 and TES-sMEP in 1. TES-mMEP during closure of the skull was used in 21 patients. DCS-mMEP was able to detect waveforms from upper and/or lower limb muscles. Alternatively, DCS-sMEP (direct [D]-wave) could accurately estimate amplitude changes. A novel "early warning sign" indicating ischemia was found in 21 patients, which started with a transiently increased amplitude of D-wave and then decreased after proximal interruption of major arteries. False-negative findings in MEP monitoring in 2 patients were caused by a blood insufficiency in the lenticulostriate artery and by a TES-sMEP recording, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that to perform accurate MEP monitoring, DCS-mMEP or DCS-sMEP recording should be used as the situation demands, with combined use of TES-mMEP recording during closure of the skull. DCS-sMEP is recommended for accurate analysis of waveforms. We also propose a novel "early warning sign" of blood insufficiency in the D-wave.