Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion

J. R. Elmore, P. Gloviczki, C. M. Harper, P. C. Pairolero, M. J. Murray, R. G. Bourchier, T. C. Bower, J. R. Daube

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Motor evoked potential monitoring was tested as an alternative to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating spinal cord function during thoracic aortic occlusion in dogs. Twenty-seven animals underwent 60 minutes of cross-clamping of the proximal descending thoracic aorta with (n = 18) or without (n = 9) cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Spinal cord blood flow was measured with microspheres, and neurologic outcome was evaluated at 24 hours with Tarlov's scoring system. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage improved neurologic outcome (p < 0.05). Motor evoked potentials recorded over the lumbar spinal cord were lost in 9 of 20 dogs with ischemic cord injury and were not lost in any of the 7 dogs that were neurologically normal. Somatosensory evoked potential were lost in 19 of 20 paraplegic/paraparetic dogs and lost in 3 of 7 normal dogs (p < 0.01). After reperfusion, motor evoked potentials returned in all nine neurologically injured dogs that lost the potentials and were still present at 24 hours. Changes in amplitude, latency, or time until loss or return of motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials did not predict neurologic injury. Loss of somatosensory evoked potentials had a high sensitivity (95%) but had low specificity (67%) because of peripheral nerve ischemia. Loss of motor evoked potentials recorded from the spinal cord had high specificity (100%) but a low sensitivity (46%) and was therefore not a reliable predictor of neurologic injury. Return of motor evoked potentials during reperfusion did not correlate with functional recovery. Motor evoked potentials stimulated in the cortex and recorded from the spinal cord had low overall accuracy (59%). Alternative techniques to improve sensitivity and accuracy of motor evoked potentials must be developed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)131-139
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1991

Fingerprint

Motor Evoked Potentials
Nervous System
Thorax
Spinal Cord
Somatosensory Evoked Potentials
Dogs
Nervous System Trauma
Thoracic Aorta
Reperfusion
Fetal Blood
Microspheres
Peripheral Nerves
Constriction
Ischemia
Wounds and Injuries

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Elmore, J. R., Gloviczki, P., Harper, C. M., Pairolero, P. C., Murray, M. J., Bourchier, R. G., ... Daube, J. R. (1991). Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 14(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.1991.29237

Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion. / Elmore, J. R.; Gloviczki, P.; Harper, C. M.; Pairolero, P. C.; Murray, M. J.; Bourchier, R. G.; Bower, T. C.; Daube, J. R.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1991, p. 131-139.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elmore, JR, Gloviczki, P, Harper, CM, Pairolero, PC, Murray, MJ, Bourchier, RG, Bower, TC & Daube, JR 1991, 'Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion', Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.1991.29237
Elmore, J. R. ; Gloviczki, P. ; Harper, C. M. ; Pairolero, P. C. ; Murray, M. J. ; Bourchier, R. G. ; Bower, T. C. ; Daube, J. R. / Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1991 ; Vol. 14, No. 2. pp. 131-139.
@article{55ae8c02675c4ea6a2b29c463d40f77e,
title = "Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion",
abstract = "Motor evoked potential monitoring was tested as an alternative to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating spinal cord function during thoracic aortic occlusion in dogs. Twenty-seven animals underwent 60 minutes of cross-clamping of the proximal descending thoracic aorta with (n = 18) or without (n = 9) cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Spinal cord blood flow was measured with microspheres, and neurologic outcome was evaluated at 24 hours with Tarlov's scoring system. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage improved neurologic outcome (p < 0.05). Motor evoked potentials recorded over the lumbar spinal cord were lost in 9 of 20 dogs with ischemic cord injury and were not lost in any of the 7 dogs that were neurologically normal. Somatosensory evoked potential were lost in 19 of 20 paraplegic/paraparetic dogs and lost in 3 of 7 normal dogs (p < 0.01). After reperfusion, motor evoked potentials returned in all nine neurologically injured dogs that lost the potentials and were still present at 24 hours. Changes in amplitude, latency, or time until loss or return of motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials did not predict neurologic injury. Loss of somatosensory evoked potentials had a high sensitivity (95{\%}) but had low specificity (67{\%}) because of peripheral nerve ischemia. Loss of motor evoked potentials recorded from the spinal cord had high specificity (100{\%}) but a low sensitivity (46{\%}) and was therefore not a reliable predictor of neurologic injury. Return of motor evoked potentials during reperfusion did not correlate with functional recovery. Motor evoked potentials stimulated in the cortex and recorded from the spinal cord had low overall accuracy (59{\%}). Alternative techniques to improve sensitivity and accuracy of motor evoked potentials must be developed.",
author = "Elmore, {J. R.} and P. Gloviczki and Harper, {C. M.} and Pairolero, {P. C.} and Murray, {M. J.} and Bourchier, {R. G.} and Bower, {T. C.} and Daube, {J. R.}",
year = "1991",
doi = "10.1067/mva.1991.29237",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "131--139",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Failure of motor evoked potentials to predict neurologic outcome in experimental thoracic aortic occlusion

AU - Elmore, J. R.

AU - Gloviczki, P.

AU - Harper, C. M.

AU - Pairolero, P. C.

AU - Murray, M. J.

AU - Bourchier, R. G.

AU - Bower, T. C.

AU - Daube, J. R.

PY - 1991

Y1 - 1991

N2 - Motor evoked potential monitoring was tested as an alternative to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating spinal cord function during thoracic aortic occlusion in dogs. Twenty-seven animals underwent 60 minutes of cross-clamping of the proximal descending thoracic aorta with (n = 18) or without (n = 9) cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Spinal cord blood flow was measured with microspheres, and neurologic outcome was evaluated at 24 hours with Tarlov's scoring system. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage improved neurologic outcome (p < 0.05). Motor evoked potentials recorded over the lumbar spinal cord were lost in 9 of 20 dogs with ischemic cord injury and were not lost in any of the 7 dogs that were neurologically normal. Somatosensory evoked potential were lost in 19 of 20 paraplegic/paraparetic dogs and lost in 3 of 7 normal dogs (p < 0.01). After reperfusion, motor evoked potentials returned in all nine neurologically injured dogs that lost the potentials and were still present at 24 hours. Changes in amplitude, latency, or time until loss or return of motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials did not predict neurologic injury. Loss of somatosensory evoked potentials had a high sensitivity (95%) but had low specificity (67%) because of peripheral nerve ischemia. Loss of motor evoked potentials recorded from the spinal cord had high specificity (100%) but a low sensitivity (46%) and was therefore not a reliable predictor of neurologic injury. Return of motor evoked potentials during reperfusion did not correlate with functional recovery. Motor evoked potentials stimulated in the cortex and recorded from the spinal cord had low overall accuracy (59%). Alternative techniques to improve sensitivity and accuracy of motor evoked potentials must be developed.

AB - Motor evoked potential monitoring was tested as an alternative to somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in evaluating spinal cord function during thoracic aortic occlusion in dogs. Twenty-seven animals underwent 60 minutes of cross-clamping of the proximal descending thoracic aorta with (n = 18) or without (n = 9) cerebrospinal fluid drainage. Spinal cord blood flow was measured with microspheres, and neurologic outcome was evaluated at 24 hours with Tarlov's scoring system. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage improved neurologic outcome (p < 0.05). Motor evoked potentials recorded over the lumbar spinal cord were lost in 9 of 20 dogs with ischemic cord injury and were not lost in any of the 7 dogs that were neurologically normal. Somatosensory evoked potential were lost in 19 of 20 paraplegic/paraparetic dogs and lost in 3 of 7 normal dogs (p < 0.01). After reperfusion, motor evoked potentials returned in all nine neurologically injured dogs that lost the potentials and were still present at 24 hours. Changes in amplitude, latency, or time until loss or return of motor evoked potentials or somatosensory evoked potentials did not predict neurologic injury. Loss of somatosensory evoked potentials had a high sensitivity (95%) but had low specificity (67%) because of peripheral nerve ischemia. Loss of motor evoked potentials recorded from the spinal cord had high specificity (100%) but a low sensitivity (46%) and was therefore not a reliable predictor of neurologic injury. Return of motor evoked potentials during reperfusion did not correlate with functional recovery. Motor evoked potentials stimulated in the cortex and recorded from the spinal cord had low overall accuracy (59%). Alternative techniques to improve sensitivity and accuracy of motor evoked potentials must be developed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025740980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025740980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mva.1991.29237

DO - 10.1067/mva.1991.29237

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 131

EP - 139

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 2

ER -