Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 2, 2026
Updated Technique for Reliable, Easy, and Tolerated Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Including Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Published on: January 3, 2020
Higher success rate with transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potentials using constant-voltage
Hideki Shigematsu1, Masahiko Kawaguchi2, Hironobu Hayashi2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara City, Nara 6348522, Japan.
Background Context:
During spine surgery, the spinal cord is electrophysiologically monitored via transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potentials (TES-MEPs) to prevent injury. Transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potential involves the use of either constant-current or constant-voltage stimulation; however, there are few comparative data available regarding their ability to adequately elicit compound motor action potentials. We hypothesized that the success rates of TES-MEP recordings would be similar between constant-current and constant-voltage stimulations in patients undergoing spine surgery.
Purpose:
The objective of this study was to compare the success rates of TES-MEP recordings between constant-current and constant-voltage stimulation.
Study Design:
This is a prospective, within-subject study.
Patient Sample:
Data from 100 patients undergoing spinal surgery at the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar level were analyzed.
Outcome Measures:
The success rates of the TES-MEP recordings from each muscle were examined.
Materials And Methods:
Transcranial electrical stimulation with constant-current and constant-voltage stimulations at the C3 and C4 electrode positions (international "10-20" system) was applied to each patient. Compound muscle action potentials were bilaterally recorded from the abductor pollicis brevis (APB), deltoid (Del), abductor hallucis (AH), tibialis anterior (TA), gastrocnemius (GC), and quadriceps (Quad) muscles.
Results:
The success rates of the TES-MEP recordings from the right Del, right APB, bilateral Quad, right TA, right GC, and bilateral AH muscles were significantly higher using constant-voltage stimulation than those using constant-current stimulation. The overall success rates with constant-voltage and constant-current stimulations were 86.3% and 68.8%, respectively (risk ratio 1.25 [95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.31]).
Conclusions:
The success rates of TES-MEP recordings were higher using constant-voltage stimulation compared with constant-current stimulation in patients undergoing spinal surgery.
More Related Videos
11:07In Vivo Intracellular Recording of Type-Identified Rat Spinal Motoneurons During Trans-Spinal Direct Current Stimulation
Published on: May 11, 2020
11:11Effects of Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation on the Primary Motor Cortex by Online Combined Approach with Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Published on: September 23, 2017