Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Motor Evoked Potential | Research

Effects of desflurane and sevoflurane on somatosensory-evoked and motor-evoked potential monitoring during neurosurgery: a randomized controlled trial

Authors: Bingbing Xiang, Shulan Jiao, Yulong Zhang, Lu Wang, Yuting Yao, Feng Yuan, Rui Chen, Qijun Zhou

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Better protection can be provided during neurosurgery due to the establishment of somatosensory-evoked potential (SEP) and motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring technologies. However, some studies have showed that inhaled halogenated anesthetics have a significant impact on neurophysiological monitoring.

Methods

A total of 40 consecutive patients undergoing neurosurgery were randomly assigned to two groups receiving inhaled anesthetics, either desflurane or sevoflurane. Multiples levels (concentrations of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9) of anesthetics were administered at minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), and then the latencies and amplitudes of SEPs and MEPs were recorded.

Results

SEP and MEP signals were well preserved in patients who underwent neurosurgery under general anesthesia supplemented with desflurane or sevoflurane at concentrations of 0.3, 0.6 and 0.9 MAC. In each desflurane or sevoflurane group, the amplitudes of SEPs and MEPs decreased and the latencies of SEPs were prolonged significantly as the MAC increased (P < 0.05). The SEP latencies of both the upper and lower limbs in the desflurane group were significantly longer, and the SEP amplitudes were significantly lower than those in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). The MEP amplitudes in the desflurane group were significantly lower than those in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05), only the amplitudes of the upper limbs at 0.3 MAC did not vary significantly.

Conclusions

SEPs and MEPs were inhibited in a dose-dependent manner by both desflurane and sevoflurane. At the same MAC concentration, desflurane appeared to have a stronger inhibitory effect than sevoflurane. All patients studied had normal neurological examination findings, hence, these results may not be applicable to patients with preexisting deficits.

Trial registration

The study registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.​chictr.​org.​cn), Clinical Trials identifier ChiCTR2100045504​ (18/04/2021).
Literature
1.
MacDonald DB, Dong C, Quatrale R, Sala F, Skinner S, Soto F, et al. Recommendations of the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology for intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2019;130(1):161–79.CrossRef
2.
Walker CT, Kim HJ, Park P, Lenke LG, Weller MA, Smith JS, et al. Neuroanesthesia guidelines for optimizing transcranial motor evoked potential neuromonitoring during deformity and complex spinal surgery: a Delphi consensus study. Spine. 2020;45(13):911–20.CrossRef
3.
Nunes RR, Bersot CDA, Garritano JG. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in neuroanesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018;31(5):532–8.CrossRef
4.
Kawaguchi M, Iida H, Tanaka S, Fukuoka N, Hayashi H, Izumi S, et al. A practical guide for anesthetic management during intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring. J Anesth. 2020;34(1):5–28.
5.
Biscevic M, Sehic A, Krupic F. Intraoperative neuromonitoring in spine deformity surgery: modalities, advantages, limitations, medicolegal issues – surgeons’ views. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(1):9–16.CrossRef
6.
Chong CT, Manninen P, Sivanaser V, Subramanyam R, Lu N, Venkatraghavan L. Direct comparison of the effect of desflurane and sevoflurane on intraoperative motor-evoked potentia ls monitoring. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2014;26(4):306–12.CrossRef
7.
Chen Z. The effects of isoflurane and propofol on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput. 2004;18(4):303–8.CrossRef
8.
Péréon Y, Delécrin J, Nguyeni The Tich SN, Bertrand-Vasseur A, Passuti N. Successful monitoring of neurogenic mixed evoked potentials elicited by anterior spinal cord stimulation through thoracoscopy during spine surgery. Spine. 1999;24(19):2025–9.CrossRef
9.
Gonzalez AA, Jeyanandarajan D, Hansen C, Zada G, Hsieh PC. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spine surgery: a review. Neurosurg Focus. 2009;27(4):E6.CrossRef
10.
Li F, Gorji R, Allott G, Modes K, Lunn R, Yang ZJ. The usefulness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in cervical spine surgery: a retrospective analysis of 200 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2012;24(3):185–90.CrossRef
11.
Slotty PJ, Abdulazim A, Kodama K, Javadi M, Hanggi D, Seifert V, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during resection of infratentorial lesions: the surgeon's view. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(1):281–8.CrossRef
12.
Cicek S, Attar A, Tuna H, Kecik Y, Egemen N. Effects of different doses of epidural midazolam on spinal somatosensory evoked potentials. Acta Neurochir. 2000;142(8):921–7.CrossRef
13.
Sloan TB. Anesthesia management and intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring. In: Kohta A, Sloan TB, Toleikis JR, editors. Monitoring the nervous system for anesthesiologists and other healthcare professionals. 2nd ed. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 317–41.CrossRef
14.
Trifa M, Krishna S, D'Mello A, Hakim M, Tobias JD. Sugammadex to reverse neuromuscular blockade and provide optimal conditions for motor-evoked potential monitoring. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017;11(2):219–21.CrossRef
15.
Ma H, Zhao M, Suh M, Schwartz TH. Hemodynamic surrogates for excitatory membrane potential change during interictal epileptiform events in rat neocortex. J Neurophysiol. 2009;101(5):2550–62.CrossRef
16.
Logginidou HG, Li BH, Li DP, Lohmann JS, Schuler HG, DiVittore NA, et al. Propofol suppresses the cortical somatosensory evoked potential in rats. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(6):1784–8.CrossRef
17.
Sloan TB. Anesthetics and the brain. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2002;20(2):265–92.CrossRef
18.
Dahaba AA, Yin J, Xiao Z, Su J, Bornemann H, Dong H, et al. Different propofol-remifentanil or sevoflurane-remifentanil bispectral index levels for electrocorticographic spike identification during epilepsy surgery. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(3):582–92.CrossRef
19.
Ohtaki S, Akiyama Y, Kanno A, Noshiro S, Hayase T, Yamakage M, et al. The influence of depth of anesthesia on motor evoked potential response during awake craniotomy. J Neurosurg. 2017;126(1):260–5.CrossRef
20.
Baker A, Widrich J. Somatosensory evoked potentials. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2020.
21.
Tsutsui S, Yamada H. Basic principles and recent trends of transcranial motor evoked potentials in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. Neurol Med Chir. 2016;56(8):451–6.CrossRef
22.
Chong CT, Manninen P, Sivanaser V, Subramanyam R, Lu N, Venkatraghavan L. Direct comparison of the effect of desflurane and sevoflurane on intraoperative motor-evoked potentials monitoring. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2014;26(4):306–12.CrossRef
23.
Shida Y, Shida C, Hiratsuka N, Kaji K, Ogata J. High-frequency stimulation restored motor-evoked potentials to the baseline level in the upper extremities but not in the lower extremities under sevoflurane anesthesia in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2012;24(2):113–20.CrossRef
24.
Ushirozako H, Yoshida G, Hasegawa T, Yamato Y, Yasuda T, Banno T, et al. Characteristics of false-positive alerts on transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring during pediatric scoliosis and adult spinal deformity surgery: an “anesthetic fade” phenomenon. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;22:1–9.
25.
Hernandez-Palazon J, Izura V, Fuentes-Garcia D, Piqueras-Perez C, Domenech-Asensi P, Falcon-Arana L. Comparison of the effects of propofol and sevoflurane combined with remifentanil on transcranial electric motor-evoked and somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during brainstem surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2015;27(4):282–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of desflurane and sevoflurane on somatosensory-evoked and motor-evoked potential monitoring during neurosurgery: a randomized controlled trial
Authors
Bingbing Xiang
Shulan Jiao
Yulong Zhang
Lu Wang
Yuting Yao
Feng Yuan
Rui Chen
Qijun Zhou
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01463-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research Article

Decreasing leakage during continuous femoral nerve catheter fixation using 2-octyl cyanoacrylate glue (Dermabond®): a randomized controlled trial

Research article

Clinical outcomes of postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in Stanford type a aortic dissection

Research

Infrared thermography for assessment of thoracic paravertebral block: a prospective observational study

Research

Is measurement of central venous pressure required to estimate systemic vascular resistance? A retrospective cohort study

Research article

The visually estimated blood volume in scaled canisters based on a simulation study

Research

Optimal angle of needle insertion for spinal anesthesia in patients with spondylolisthesis: an ultrasonographic study