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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsIntraoperative 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.ResultsMEP 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.ConclusionsThe 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.