Identifying Suspected Volume Conduction Contamination of External Anal Sphincter Motor Evoked Potentials in
Marshall Wilkinson1, Uchenna Ajoku2, Kristine Pederson1
1Section of Neurosurgery, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Purpose:
Iatrogenic injury to sacral nerve roots poses significant quality of life issues for patients. Motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring can be used for intraoperative surveillance of these important structures. We hypothesized that volume conducted depolarizations from gluteus maximus (GM) may contaminate external anal sphincter (EAS) MEP results during lumbosacral spine surgery.
Methods:
Motor evoked potential from the EAS and medial GM in 40 patients were prospectively assessed for inter-muscle volume conduction during lumbosacral spine surgeries. Peak latency matching between the EAS and GM MEP recordings conditionally identified volume conduction (VC+) or no volume conduction (VC-). Linear regression and power spectral density analysis of EAS and medial GM MEP amplitudes were performed from VC+ and VC- data pairs to confirm intermuscle electrical cross-talk.
Results:
Motor evoked potential peak latency matching identified putative VC+ in 9 of 40 patients (22.5%). Mean regression coefficients (r2) from peak-to-peak EAS and medial GM MEP amplitude plots were 0.83 ± 0.04 for VC+ and 0.34 ± 0.06 for VC- MEP (P < 0.001). Power spectral density analysis identified the major frequency component in the MEP responses. The mean frequency difference between VC+ EAS and medial GM MEP responses were 0.4 ± 0.2 Hz compared with 3.5 ± 0.6 Hz for VC- MEP (P < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Our data support using peak latency matching between EAS and GM MEP to identify spurious MEP results because of intermuscle volume conduction. Neuromonitorists should be aware of this possible cross-muscle conflict to avoid interpretation errors during lumbosacral procedures using EAS MEP.
