J Clin Neurol.  2013 Oct;9(4):244-251. 10.3988/jcn.2013.9.4.244.

Predictive Value of Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring during Resection of Intraparenchymal and Intraventricular Tumors Using an Endoscopic Port

• Thirumala
• Lai D
• Engh J
• Habeych M
• Crammond D
• Balzer J

• KMID: 1980544
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3988/jcn.2013.9.4.244

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) using upper and lower somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) is an established technique used to predict and prevent neurologic injury during intracranial tumor resections. Endoscopic port surgery (EPS) is a minimally-invasive approach to deep intraparenchymal and intraventricular brain tumors. The authors intended to evaluate the predictive value of SSEP monitoring during resection of intracranial brain tumors using a parallel endoscopic technique.
METHODS
A retrospective review was conducted of patients operated on from 2007-2010 utilizing IONM in whom endoscopic ports were used to remove either intraparenchymal or intraventricular tumors. Cases were eligible for review if an endoscopic port was used to resect an intracranial tumor and the electronic chart included all intraoperative monitoring data as well as pre- and post-operative neurologic exams.
RESULTS
139 EPS cases met criteria for inclusion. Eighty five patients (61%) had intraparenchymal and fifty four (39%) had intraventricular tumors or colloid cysts. SSEP changes were seen in eleven cases (7.9%), being irreversible in three (2.2%) and reversible in eight cases (5.8%). Seven patients (5.0%) with intraparenchymal tumors had SSEP changes which met our criterea for significant changes while there were four (2.9%) with intraventricular (p-value=0.25). Five patients suffered post operative deficits, two reversible and two irreversible SSEP changes. Only one case exhibited post operative hemiparesis with no SSEP changes. The positive predictive value of SSEP was 45.4% and the negative predictive value was 99.2%.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the high negative and low positive predictive values, the utility of SSEP monitoring for cylindrical port resections may be limited. However, the use of SSEP monitoring can be helpful in reducing the impact of endoscopic port manipulation when the tumor is closer to the somatosensory pathway.

Keyword

endoscopic port; somatosensory; evoked potentials; somatosensory; monitoring

MeSH Terms

Brain Neoplasms
Colloid Cysts
Evoked Potentials
Evoked Potentials, Somatosensory*
Humans
Monitoring, Intraoperative
Paresis
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Bejjani GK, Nora PC, Vera PL, Broemling L, Sekhar LN. The predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring: review of 244 procedures. Neurosurgery. 1998; 43:491–498. discussion 498-500.

2. Wiedemayer H, Sandalcioglu IE, Armbruster W, Regel J, Schaefer H, Stolke D. False negative findings in intraoperative SEP monitoring: analysis of 658 consecutive neurosurgical cases and review of published reports. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004; 75:280–286.

3. Wilber RG, Thompson GH, Shaffer JW, Brown RH, Nash CL Jr. Postoperative neurological deficits in segmental spinal instrumentation. A study using spinal cord monitoring. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984; 66:1178–1187.

4. Jones SJ, Edgar MA, Ransford AO, Thomas NP. A system for the electrophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during operations for scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983; 65:134–139.

5. Brown RH, Nash CL Jr, Berilla JA, Amaddio MD. Cortical evoked potential monitoring A system for intraoperative monitoring of spinal cord function. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9:256–261.

6. Bradshaw K, Webb JK, Fraser AM. Clinical evaluation of spinal cord monitoring in scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1984; 9:636–643.

7. Kombos T, Picht T, Derdilopoulos A, Suess O. Impact of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring on surgery of high-grade gliomas. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2009; 26:422–425.

8. Gentili F, Lougheed WM, Yamashiro K, Corrado C. Monitoring of sensory evoked potentials during surgery of skull base tumours. Can J Neurol Sci. 1985; 12:336–340.

9. De Vleeschauwer P, Horsch S, Matamoros R. Monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials in carotid surgery: results, usefulness and limitations of the method. Ann Vasc Surg. 1988; 2:63–68.

10. Stejskal L, Kramár F, Ostrý S, Benes V, Mohapl M, Limberk B. Experience of 500 cases of neurophysiological monitoring in carotid endarterectomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2007; 149:681–688. discussion 689.

11. Lopéz JR, Chang SD, Steinberg GK. The use of electrophysiological monitoring in the intraoperative management of intracranial aneurysms. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999; 66:189–196.

12. Friedman WA, Kaplan BL, Day AL, Sypert GW, Curran MT. Evoked potential monitoring during aneurysm operation: observations after fifty cases. Neurosurgery. 1987; 20:678–687.

13. Lam AM, Manninen PH, Ferguson GG, Nantau W. Monitoring electrophysiologic function during carotid endarterectomy: a comparison of somatosensory evoked potentials and conventional electroencephalogram. Anesthesiology. 1991; 75:15–21.

14. Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Bose B, Li M, et al. Neurophysiological identification of position-induced neurologic injury during anterior cervical spine surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2006; 20:437–444.

15. Kamel IR, Drum ET, Koch SA, Whitten JA, Gaughan JP, Barnette RE, et al. The use of somatosensory evoked potentials to determine the relationship between patient positioning and impending upper extremity nerve injury during spine surgery: a retrospective analysis. Anesth Analg. 2006; 102:1538–1542.

16. Chung I, Glow JA, Dimopoulos V, Walid MS, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, et al. Upper-limb somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in lumbosacral spine surgery: a prognostic marker for position-related ulnar nerve injury. Spine J. 2009; 9:287–295.

17. Schwartz DM, Drummond DS, Hahn M, Ecker ML, Dormans JP. Prevention of positional brachial plexopathy during surgical correction of scoliosis. J Spinal Disord. 2000; 13:178–182.

18. Kassam AB, Engh JA, Mintz AH, Prevedello DM. Completely endoscopic resection of intraparenchymal brain tumors. J Neurosurg. 2009; 110:116–123.

19. Harris AE, Hadjipanayis CG, Lunsford LD, Lunsford AK, Kassam AB. Microsurgical removal of intraventricular lesions using endoscopic visualization and stereotactic guidance. Neurosurgery. 2005; 56:1 Suppl. 125–132.

20. Engh JA, Lunsford LD, Amin DV, Ochalski PG, Fernandez-Miranda J, Prevedello DM, et al. Stereotactically guided endoscopic port surgery for intraventricular tumor and colloid cyst resection. Neurosurgery. 2010; 67:3 Suppl Operative. ons198–ons204. discussion ons204-ons205.

21. Thirumala PD, Kassasm AB, Habeych M, Wichman K, Chang YF, Gardner P, et al. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during endoscopic endonasal approach to skull base surgery: analysis of observed changes. Neurosurgery. 2011; 69:1 Suppl Operative. ons64–ons76. discussion ons76.

22. York DH, Chabot RJ, Gaines RW. Response variability of somatosensory evoked potentials during scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987; 12:864–876.

23. Chen ZY, Wong HK, Chan YH. Variability of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004; 17:470–476.

24. Balzer JR, Rose RD, Welch WC, Sclabassi RJ. Simultaneous somatosensory evoked potential and electromyographic recordings during lumbosacral decompression and instrumentation. Neurosurgery. 1998; 42:1318–1324. discussion 1324-1325.

25. Mizoi K, Yoshimoto T. Permissible temporary occlusion time in aneurysm surgery as evaluated by evoked potential monitoring. Neurosurgery. 1993; 33:434–440. discussion 440.

26. Branston NM, Symon L, Crockard HA, Pasztor E. Relationship between the cortical evoked potential and local cortical blood flow following acute middle cerebral artery occlusion in the baboon. Exp Neurol. 1974; 45:195–208.

27. Astrup J, Symon L, Branston NM, Lassen NA. Cortical evoked potential and extracellular K+ and H+ at critical levels of brain ischemia. Stroke. 1977; 8:51–57.

28. Lopez JR. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1996; 34:33–54.

29. Symon L. The relationship between CBF, evoked potentials and the clinical features in cerebral ischaemia. Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 1980; 78:175–190.

30. Branston NM, Symon L, Strong AJ. Reversibility of ischaemically induced changes in extracellular potassium in primate cortex. J Neurol Sci. 1978; 37:37–49.

31. Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, Kanim LE, Sherman JE. Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995; 96:6–11.

32. Nuwer MR. Spinal cord monitoring. Muscle Nerve. 1999; 22:1620–1630.

33. Macdonald DB. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: overview and update. J Clin Monit Comput. 2006; 20:347–377.