Sign up & Download
Sign in

Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring.

by David B MacDonald
Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology (2002)

Abstract

This article reviews intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring safety based on comparison with other clinical and experimental brain stimulation methods and clinical experience in more than 15000 cases. Comparative analysis indicates that brain damage and kindling are highly unlikely. There have been remarkably few adverse events. Pulse train TES-induced or coincidental seizures (n = 5) are rare, probably because of very brief (<0.03 second) stimuli, anesthesia, and the general absence of predisposing cerebral conditions. Soft bite blocks may prevent tongue or lip laceration (n = 29) or mandibular fracture (n = 1). Rare cardiac arrhythmia (n = 5) and intraoperative awareness (n = 1) may be coincidental. Minor scalp burns (n = 2) are rare. Although possible, no spinal epidural recording electrode complications or injuries resulting from TES-induced movement were found. There have been no recognized adverse neuropsychological effects, headaches, or endocrine disturbances. Comprehensive relative contraindications include epilepsy, cortical lesions, convexity skull defects, raised intracranial pressure, cardiac disease, proconvulsant medications or anesthetics, intracranial electrodes, vascular clips or shunts, and cardiac pacemakers or other implanted biomedical devices. Otherwise unexplained intraoperative seizures and possibly arrhythmias are indications to abort TES. With appropriate precautions in expert hands, the well-established benefits of TES MEP monitoring decidedly outweigh the associated risks.

Cite this document (BETA)

Sign up today - FREE

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research. Learn more

  • All your research in one place
  • Add and import papers easily
  • Access it anywhere, anytime

Start using Mendeley in seconds!

Already have an account? Sign in

Readership Statistics

7 Readers on Mendeley
by Discipline
 
 
 
by Academic Status
 
29% Other Professional
 
29% Post Doc
 
29% Researcher (at an Academic Institution)
by Country
 
57% United States
 
29% United Kingdom
 
14% Germany