Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2026
Bilateral Assessment of the Corticospinal Pathways of the Ankle Muscles Using Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: February 19, 2019
[Changes of somatosensory and transcranial magnetic stimulation motor evoked potentials in experimental spinal cord
Yong Hou1, Lin Nie, Li-hong Liu
1Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China. houyong23@yahoo.cn
Objective:
To study the changes of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and transcranial magnetic simulation motor evoked potential (TMS-MEP) in experimental spinal cord injury (SCI).
Methods:
Thirty-two rabbits were randomly divided into 4 equal groups. All rabbits were anesthetized for 90 min. A group (Group A) underwent only laminectomy of T12 without SCI, stimulation with different intensities was used to induce SEP and TMS-MEP to determine the most appropriate stimulation intensity. The EPs were recorded before and after the operation. The other 3 groups underwent laminectomy of T12 to expose the dura, and a spinal cord compressing apparatus weighing 40 g was put on the intact dura and dorsal surface of spinal cord underneath for 5, 15, and 30 min respectively (Groups B, C, and D). SEP and TMS-MEP were detected after anesthesia, after exposure of spinal cord, and 5 and 30 min, 1 and 6 h, and 1, 3, and 7 d. The latency and amplitude of each wave were measured. The data were analyzed by analysis of variance, t-test and linear correlation. Tarlov behavior score was used to assess the motor function before the operation and 1, 3, and 7 days after SCI.
Results:
It was found that 100% intensity stimulus obtained stable and reliable MEP waves. Anesthetic did not influence the EPs. The amplitude of SEP began to decrease 5 min after SCI and the latency began to increase 30 min after SCI. And both the amplitude and latency, especially the former, of MEP began to significantly change 5 min after SCI. The latency levels of SEP and MEP increased and the amplitude decreased after compression time-dependently during a certain range of time (all P <0. 05). The latency of SEP recovered 1 d after SCI and the amplitude recovered 7 d after; and the latency of MEP recovered 3 d after SCI and the amplitude did not recover even 7 d after SCI. The Tarlov scores of all groups were all 5 before operation, and the Tarlov scores of Group C and D became 1 d after operation and then increased later, however, still lower than 5 even at day 7.
Conclusion:
SEP and TMS-MEP are very sensitive to SCI, in particular, the change of amplitude is more sensitive then the latency change and can more accurately reflect the degree of SCI. Combination of SEP and TMS-MEP objectively reflects the SCI degree. EP measurement, as a noninvasive technique, has great value in monitoring spinal cord function.
