Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Case ReportCase Reports

Report of Seizure Following Intraoperative Monitoring of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials

Scott F. Davis, Thomas Altstadt, Rick Flores, Alan Kaye and Glenn Oremus
Ochsner Journal December 2013, 13 (4) 558-560;
Scott F. Davis
*Department of Anesthesiology, Tulane University and Louisiana State University Schools of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
†PhysIOM, Ft. Collins, CO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Altstadt
‡Southern Oregon Neurological and Spine Associates, Medford, OR
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rick Flores
†PhysIOM, Ft. Collins, CO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alan Kaye
§Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Glenn Oremus
†PhysIOM, Ft. Collins, CO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Erratum - December 21, 2014

Abstract

Background Transcranial motor evoked potentials are used to detect iatrogenic injury to the corticospinal tracts and vascular territory of the anterior spinal artery. Tongue and lip lacerations are the most common complication of this modality. Theoretical complications include cardiac arrhythmia and seizure although there are no published reports of either.

Case Report We report a case of postoperative seizure following motor evoked potential testing in a patient without a seizure history. Although anecdotal reports exist, ours is the first known published report of seizure following transcranial electrical stimulation.

Conclusion The intent of this novel report is to encourage the use of anesthetic regimens that raise seizure threshold, decrease stimulation threshold, and increase the specificity of motor evoked potentials. Providers should be prepared to treat intraoperative or perioperative seizure activity when the monitoring protocol includes transcranial motor evoked potentials.

Keywords
  • Anesthesia
  • complications
  • evoked potentials—motor
  • monitoring—intraoperative
  • seizures

INTRODUCTION

Transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are a widely accepted electrophysiologic modality used to monitor the integrity of the corticospinal tract specifically, with inferred protection of the entire vascular territory of the anterior spinal artery.1 MEP monitoring is considered safe; the most prevalent complication is tongue and lip laceration.2-4 The most serious safety concern is seizure generation from transcranial low-frequency pulse train stimulation, so seizure history is a contraindication for MEP testing although no reports of seizures resulting from MEP monitoring in anesthetized patients have been published to date. There are unpublished observations by Deletis and MacDonald of rare seizure occurrences.4

We report a case of unexplained postoperative seizure in a patient without a seizure disorder who underwent MEP monitoring for thoracic laminectomy and fusion. While MEP testing is the most plausible explanation for this occurrence, other contributing factors cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, minimizing transcranial stimulation intensity is important to avoid any contribution of MEP monitoring to the generation of a seizure event, as well as to prevent other complications such as tongue or lip laceration. This report should encourage safe and reliable MEP monitoring.

CASE REPORT

A 53-year-old male with a history of type 2 diabetes and no history of prior seizure underwent a T7-8 laminectomy and T5-10 instrumented arthrodesis for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) discitis. Induction was accomplished with propofol, lidocaine, and fentanyl, and intubation was facilitated with succinylcholine. Bilateral soft bite blocks were placed to prevent tongue and lip laceration. Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane (peak end tidal concentration 3.7%) and a propofol infusion of 60-100 mcg/kg/min.

Neurophysiological monitoring with somatosensory and motor evoked potentials was performed throughout the procedure. Motor evoked potentials were performed by transcranial pulse train stimulation of constant voltage. Seven pulses of 75 μs duration were applied via 2 stimulating electrodes placed at the C3 and C4 scalp locations according to the International 10-20 system. Myogenic responses from the hand and the intrinsic foot musculature were recorded bilaterally. MEP recordings were obtained 13 times during the procedure. Stimulation intensities producing a recordable myogenic response ranged from 900 to 1,000 V.

No electrophysiological changes were reported during the procedure, and MEPs were consistently obtained in all 4 extremities. Postoperatively, immediately upon waking and approximately 30 minutes after the final MEP stimulation, the patient was able to communicate and follow commands with good strength in the left upper and bilateral lower extremities. He was monoplegic in the right upper extremity and had rhythmic jaw jerking movements. The clinical presentation was most consistent with a simple partial seizure. He was treated with an intravenous 2 mg dose of Ativan administered over 3 minutes, resulting in abatement of seizure-like activity without reoccurrence. The patient's right upper extremity weakness resolved within 24 hours, and he has remained seizure free.

DISCUSSION

Ours is the first known report of a seizure following MEP monitoring in a patient without a prior history of seizures. Our parameters for MEP stimulation were within accepted stimulation values5; however, stimulation intensities of 900-1,000 V using constant voltage stimulation are at the upper limits of accepted values. The equivalent current delivered was 100-110 mA. These intensities were the minimum intensities that yielded a reliable myogenic response, but in addition to delivering more current to the brain, these intensities increase the risk of patient movement and tongue/lip laceration.

The occurrence of the seizure approximately 30 minutes poststimulation makes it difficult to definitively correlate with MEP testing. Some volatile inhalants, such as sevoflurane, have proconvulsive properties.6-9 Conversely, desflurane and propofol, which were used in this case, are demonstrated anticonvulsive agents.10-14 Therefore, we have no reason to suspect the anesthetic regimen as the direct cause of the event. Indirectly, however, the use of any volatile inhalant raises the threshold of MEP activation by a mechanism that inhibits temporal summation of descending inputs on the alpha motor neuron as well as by hyperpolarizing the lower motor neuron pool.15 Increased stimulation parameters are necessary to overcome this effect. Thus, MEP stimulation was likely a contributing factor to the seizure. The patient's history of diabetes and infection may also have contributed to a predisposition for seizure generation.

The presence of any predisposing factors for seizure generation should be considered when performing MEP testing. Whether these factors lower the range of safe stimulation parameters is unknown, but clinicians should presume that they do, and high-intensity stimulation should be avoided if possible.

We believe the risk of seizure from MEP stimulation is extremely low, and this risk is outweighed by the potential benefit of MEP monitoring. While we cannot definitively link MEP monitoring with the occurrence of seizure in this case, the link is strongly suspected. Because the reports of seizure following MEP testing have been anecdotal, practitioners may not be as attentive to minimizing patient risk as they should be. We hope this report will raise awareness of the risk of seizure generation, regardless of the rarity. One method of lowering the risk of seizure generation is to use the propofol/narcotic anesthetic protocol described by Sloan and Heyer.15 Such a protocol not only raises the seizure threshold but also decreases the threshold intensity required to record reliable MEPs.

CONCLUSION

Practitioners should always be prepared to treat intraoperative seizure when MEPs are included in the monitoring plan, especially if the patient has a seizure history or predisposing factors. This report should not discourage the use of MEPs for spinal cord monitoring but should rather encourage the use of a favorable anesthetic regimen for safe and reliable motor monitoring.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care and Medical Knowledge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Thank you to Nick Ficek for help in data collection.

Footnotes

  • The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Deletis V,
    2. Sala F
    (2, 2008) Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol 119(2):248–264, pmid:18053764, Epub 2007 Nov 28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Davis SF,
    2. Kalarickal P,
    3. Strickland T
    (12, 2010) A report of two cases of lip and tongue bite injury associated with transcranial motor evoked potentials. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 50(4):313–320, pmid:21313791.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. MacDonald DB
    (10, 2002) Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):416–429.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Schwartz DM,
    2. Sestokas AK,
    3. Dormans JP,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2011) Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring during spine surgery: is it safe? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(13):1046–1049, pmid:21217447.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Schwartz DM,
    2. Auerbach JD,
    3. Dormans JP,
    4. et al.
    (11, 2007) Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(11):2440–2449, pmid:17974887.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Eipe N
    (3, 2006) Seizures with volatile anaesthetics: ironically 'jamais vu'? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 50(3):395, pmid:16480486.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Mohanram A,
    2. Kumar V,
    3. Iqbal Z,
    4. Markan S,
    5. Pagel PS
    (8, 2007) Repetitive generalized seizure-like activity during emergence from sevoflurane anesthesia. Can J Anaesth 54(8):657–661, pmid:17666720.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pearce RA
    (5 1, 1996) Volatile anaesthetic enhancement of paired-pulse depression investigated in the rat hippocampus in vitro. J Physiol 492((Pt 3)):823–840, pmid:8734993.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Wajima Z,
    2. Shiga T,
    3. Yoshikawa T,
    4. Ogura A,
    5. Inoue T,
    6. Ogawa R
    (8, 2003) Propofol alone, sevoflurane alone, and combined propofol-sevoflurane anaesthesia in electroconvulsive therapy. Anaesth Intensive Care 31(4):396–400, pmid:12973963.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Bauer J,
    2. Hageman I,
    3. Dam H,
    4. et al.
    (6, 2009) Comparison of propofol and thiopental as anesthetic agents for electroconvulsive therapy: a randomized, blinded comparison of seizure duration, stimulus charge, clinical effect, and cognitive side effects. J ECT 25(2):85–90, pmid:19092676.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hirsch NP,
    2. Smith M
    (10, 2003) Review of the evidence for the use of propofol in the management of status epilepticus. J Neurol 250(10):1241, pmid:14586610.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Mirsattari SM,
    2. Sharpe MD,
    3. Young GB
    (8, 2004) Treatment of refractory status epilepticus with inhalational anesthetic agents isoflurane and desflurane. Arch Neurol 61(8):1254–1259, pmid:15313843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Rossetti AO,
    2. Reichhart MD,
    3. Schaller MD,
    4. Despland PA,
    5. Bogousslavsky J
    (7, 2004) Propofol treatment of refractory status epilepticus: a study of 31 episodes. Epilepsia 45(7):757–763, pmid:15230698.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Sharpe MD,
    2. Young GB,
    3. Mirsattari S,
    4. Harris C
    (7, 2002) Prolonged desflurane administration for refractory status epilepticus. Anesthesiology 97(1):261–264, pmid:12131129.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Sloan TB,
    2. Heyer EJ
    (10, 2002) Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):430–443, pmid:12477988.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 13, Issue 4
Dec 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Report of Seizure Following Intraoperative Monitoring of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Report of Seizure Following Intraoperative Monitoring of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials
Scott F. Davis, Thomas Altstadt, Rick Flores, Alan Kaye, Glenn Oremus
Ochsner Journal Dec 2013, 13 (4) 558-560;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Report of Seizure Following Intraoperative Monitoring of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials
Scott F. Davis, Thomas Altstadt, Rick Flores, Alan Kaye, Glenn Oremus
Ochsner Journal Dec 2013, 13 (4) 558-560;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • CASE REPORT
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Propofol Infusion Syndrome or Not? A Case Report
  • Recurrent Angiomatoid Fibrous Histiocytoma: A Case Report and Review of the Literature
  • Late Recurrence of Light Chain Deposition Disease after Kidney Transplantation Treated with Bortezomib: A Case Report
Show more Case Reports

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Anesthesia
  • complications
  • evoked potentials—motor
  • monitoring—intraoperative
  • seizures

Current Post at the Blog

American Association for the Advancement of Science Surveys Scientists About Article Publishing Charges—And Uncovers More Problems

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2023 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire