Use of NEedle Versus suRFACE Recording Electrodes for Detection of Intraoperative Motor Warnings: A Non-Inferiority Trial. The NERFACE Study Part II.

In the NERFACE study part I, the characteristics of muscle transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials (mTc-MEPs) recorded from the tibialis anterior (TA) muscles with surface and subcutaneous needle electrodes were compared. The aim of this study (NERFACE part II) was to investigate whether the use of surface electrodes was non-inferior to the use of subcutaneous needle electrodes in detecting mTc-MEP warnings during spinal cord monitoring. mTc-MEPs were simultaneously recorded from TA muscles with surface and subcutaneous needle electrodes. Monitoring outcomes (no warning, reversible warning, irreversible warning, complete loss of mTc-MEP amplitude) and neurological outcomes (no, transient, or permanent new motor deficits) were collected. The non-inferiority margin was 5%. In total, 210 (86.8%) out of 242 consecutive patients were included. There was a perfect agreement between both recording electrode types for the detection of mTc-MEP warnings. For both electrode types, the proportion of patients with a warning was 0.12 (25/210) (difference, 0.0% (one-sided 95% CI, 0.014)), indicating non-inferiority of the surface electrode. Moreover, reversible warnings for both electrode types were never followed by permanent new motor deficits, whereas among the 10 patients with irreversible warnings or complete loss of amplitude, more than half developed transient or permanent new motor deficits. In conclusion, the use of surface electrodes was non-inferior to the use of subcutaneous needle electrodes for the detection of mTc-MEP warnings recorded over the TA muscles.

Comparing Motor-Evoked Potential Characteristics of NEedle versus suRFACE Recording Electrodes during Spinal Cord Monitoring-The NERFACE Study Part I.

Muscle-recorded transcranial electrical stimulation motor-evoked potentials (mTc-MEPs) are used to assess the spinal cord integrity. They are commonly recorded with subcutaneous needle or surface electrodes, but the different characteristics of mTc-MEP signals recorded with the two types of electrodes have not been formally compared yet. In this study, mTc-MEPs were simultaneously recorded from the tibialis anterior (TA) muscles using surface and subcutaneous needle electrodes in 242 consecutive patients. Elicitability, motor thresholds, amplitude, area under the curve (AUC), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the variability between mTc-MEP amplitudes were compared. Whereas amplitude and AUC were significantly higher in subcutaneous needle recordings (p < 0.01), motor thresholds and elicitability were similar for surface and subcutaneous needle recordings. Moreover, the SNRs were >2 in more than 99.5% of the surface and subcutaneous needle recordings, and the variability between consecutive amplitudes was not significantly different between the two recording electrode types (p = 0.34). Surface electrodes appear to be a good alternative to needle electrodes for spinal cord monitoring. They are non-invasive, can record signals at similar threshold intensities, have adequately high SNRs, and record signals with equivalent variability. Whether surface electrodes are non-inferior to subcutaneous needle electrodes in detecting motor warnings is investigated in part II of the NERFACE study.

Anesthesia and intraoperative neurophysiological spinal cord monitoring.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We will explain the basic principles of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) during spinal surgery. Thereafter we highlight the significant impact that general anesthesia can have on the efficacy of the IONM and provide an overview of the essential pharmacological and physiological factors that need to be optimized to enable IONM. Lastly, we stress the importance of teamwork between the anesthesiologist, the neurophysiologist, and the surgeon to improve clinical outcome after spinal surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, the use of IONM has increased significantly. It has developed into a mature discipline, enabling neurosurgical procedures of ever-increasing complexity. It is thus of growing importance for the anesthesiologist to appreciate the interplay between IONM and anesthesia and to build up experience working in a team with the neurosurgeon and the neurophysiologist. SUMMARY: Safety measures, cooperation, careful choice of drugs, titration of drugs, and maintenance of physiological homeostasis are essential for effective IONM.