Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Monitoring

Nuwer, Marc R.; Schrader, Lara M.; Coutin-Churchman, Pedro

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22400-4_6

Marc R. Nuwer³,
Lara M. Schrader³ &
Pedro Coutin-Churchman⁴

1025 Accesses

Abstract

Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) are an excellent modality for spinal cord monitoring during surgery. They cover much territory, including the peripheral, spinal, brainstem, thalamic, and cortical levels of sensory pathways. They are used for monitoring for both spinal cord and cerebral injury during various types of surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 119.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

Nuwer MR. Recording electrode site nomenclature. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;4:121–33.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Nuwer MR, Dawson E. Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord: enhanced stability of cortical recordings. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1984;59:318–27.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Nuwer MR, editor. Evoked potential monitoring in the operating room. New York: Raven; 1986.
Google Scholar
Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, Kanim LEA, Sherman JE. Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995;96:6–11.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Nuwer MR, Aminoff M, Desmedt J, Eisen AA, Goodin D, Matsuoka S, et al. IFCN recommended standards for short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;91:6–11.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Nuwer MR. Intraoperative monitoring of neural function. In: Handbook of clinical neurophysiology, vol. 8. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008.
Google Scholar
Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G, Legatt AD, Lopez J, Minahan R, et al. Intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials. Neurology. 2012;78:585–9.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, Lanteri P, Deletis V, Faccioli F, et al. Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:1129–43.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

UCLA School of Medicine, Department of Neurology, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Marc R. Nuwer & Lara M. Schrader
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Pedro Coutin-Churchman

Authors

Marc R. Nuwer
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Lara M. Schrader
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Pedro Coutin-Churchman
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc R. Nuwer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Anesthesiology, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
Scott Francis Davis
Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Neurosciences, LSU School of Medicine, Shreveport, LA, USA
Alan David Kaye

Appendices

Questions and Answers

1.
The best tradeoff for SEP stimulation rate for a teenager is often around.
1. (a)
  3 per second
2. (b)
  5 per second
3. (c)
  7 per second
4. (d)
  9 per second
2.
When cortical SEPs are low amplitude, tactics to improve the signals’ amplitude include
1. (a)
  Faster stimulation rates
2. (b)
  Lower low filter setting
3. (c)
  A smaller sample size to produce EPs more quickly
4. (d)
  Turning on the notch filter
3.
In the 10–10 system, electrode site CP2 is located
1. (a)
  Halfway between Cz and P4
2. (b)
  Halfway between Cz and C4
3. (c)
  Halfway between Pz and P4
4. (d)
  Halfway between C4 and P4
4.
The peripheral recording site Erb’s point is at
1. (a)
  5 cm above the mid-clavicle just lateral to the sternocleidomastoid
2. (b)
  2 cm above the mid-clavicle just lateral to the sternocleidomastoid
3. (c)
  Above the clavicle, 2 cm lateral to the insertion of the sternocleidomastoid
4. (d)
  Above the clavicle, 5 cm lateral to the insertion of the sternocleidomastoid
5.
The most likely location for the best amplitude of the P37 peak for right posterior tibial SEP testing is
1. (a)
  C1’
2. (b)
  C2’
3. (c)
  Cz’
4. (d)
  CPz
6.
Recording site PF is at
1. (a)
  Posterior frontal
2. (b)
  Popliteal fossa
3. (c)
  Parietofrontal
4. (d)
  Parafrontal
7.
The most commonly used criterion for alerting a drop in posterior tibial SEPs is:
1. (a)
  10% amplitude loss or 2 ms latency increase
2. (b)
  30% amplitude loss or 3 ms latency increase
3. (c)
  50% amplitude loss or 4 ms latency increase
4. (d)
  70% amplitude loss or 6 ms latency increase
8.
The greatest amplitude decreases in cortical SEPs are commonly associated with.
1. (a)
  Too high a setting of the stimulus intensity
2. (b)
  Cooling to 32 °C
3. (c)
  MAC use of inhalation anesthetics
4. (d)
  Too low of a low filter setting

Answers

1.
(b)
2.
(b)
3.
(a)
4.
(c)
5.
(b)
6.
(b)
7.
(c)
8.
(c)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nuwer, M.R., Schrader, L.M., Coutin-Churchman, P. (2020). Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Monitoring. In: Davis, S., Kaye, A. (eds) Principles of Neurophysiological Assessment, Mapping, and Monitoring. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22400-4_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22400-4_6
Published: 19 October 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22399-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22400-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics