2010
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1249904
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Value and Pitfalls of Neurophysiological Monitoring in Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Aortic Replacement and Endovascular Repair

Abstract: Monitoring spinal cord function during surgical and endovascular interventions on the thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta is necessary. It can be made more effective by precisely analyzing the interference factors of the neurophysiological monitoring method itself. Successful strategies of immediate troubleshooting could be identified.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Neuro-electrophysiological monitoring can also be adversely influenced by anesthetic management [24,25], hypothermia [26], limb ischemia, and technological malfunctions (e.g., lead displacement, disconnection, etc.). “False negatives,” wherein patients have awakened with serious deficits in spite of normal evoked potentials, and “false positives,” wherein patients have awakened without deficits in spite of loss or degradation of signal, have both been reported with SSEP [27] and MEP [28,29] monitoring. Finally, accurate and timely interpretation of these data requires the continuous presence of a skilled physician with expertise in neuro-electrophysiological monitoring; such data are not easily interpretable by anesthesiologists, surgeons, neurointensivists, or nurses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neuro-electrophysiological monitoring can also be adversely influenced by anesthetic management [24,25], hypothermia [26], limb ischemia, and technological malfunctions (e.g., lead displacement, disconnection, etc.). “False negatives,” wherein patients have awakened with serious deficits in spite of normal evoked potentials, and “false positives,” wherein patients have awakened without deficits in spite of loss or degradation of signal, have both been reported with SSEP [27] and MEP [28,29] monitoring. Finally, accurate and timely interpretation of these data requires the continuous presence of a skilled physician with expertise in neuro-electrophysiological monitoring; such data are not easily interpretable by anesthesiologists, surgeons, neurointensivists, or nurses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Still, IONM is limited by insufficient data about potential problems and possible successful solutions as its accuracy measurement challenged by surgical procedure's adjustment, generating false positives [28,55,56]. Nevertheless, unrecovered SSEP had 97% chance of an ischemic perioperative insult; likely caused by hypoperfusion, tromboemboli, shunt malformation or inadequate BP control.…”
Section: Discussion Vascular Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…"False negatives," wherein patients awaken with important deficits in spite of "normal" evoked potentials, as well as "false positives," wherein patients awaken without deficits in spite of loss or degradation of signal, have been reported with both SSEP 12 and MEP 13 monitoring, even when used in a complimentary fashion. 14 Further, neuro-electrophysiological alerts may be temporally insensitive (delayed) relative to the inciting event, 15,16 which diminishes the chance for rescue of threatened tissue. To complicate the situation more, recovery of signals after rescue attempts is also markedly delayed, leaving the surgeon in a quandary per how to proceed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%