“…). Response latencies (Table ) are comparable to other series under general anesthesia and are slightly longer than those in awake patients due to effects of propofol on nerve conduction velocities . Response amplitudes are comparable to those previously reported in awake subjects …”
“…). Response latencies (Table ) are comparable to other series under general anesthesia and are slightly longer than those in awake patients due to effects of propofol on nerve conduction velocities . Response amplitudes are comparable to those previously reported in awake subjects …”
“…Augmentation of the SEP amplitude with propofol has been reported (14) but is not well described. Suppression of the SEP with large doses of propofol and barbiturate, as demonstrated by our model, is consistent with findings in humans (15,16), cats (17), and rats (pentobarbital only) (18). This appropriate response confirmed the validity of our model.…”
In rats, the administration of a wide range of infusion rates of dexmedetomidine did not significantly affect the somatosensory-evoked potential. These results suggest that dexmedetomidine might be a useful adjunctive drug in patients undergoing intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring.
“…The comparable intersubject levels of anesthesia due to the computer-assisted propofol application induces intraoperative SSEP changes that can be reliably predicted. [18][19][20]25 The influence of midazolam used for premedication can be neglected, as several studies showed no or only a transient effect on SSEP latencies. 22,26,27 Also the application of low doses of opioids (fentanyl) is not supposed to induce the predictable changes on SSEP latencies.…”
Objective: The reproducibility and clinical reliability of perioperative somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) were prospectively evaluated in uneventful scoliosis surgery. The influence of anesthesia owing to induction of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) upon preoperative SSEP and the variability of intraoperative SSEP were calculated. The potential effect of spine surgery was assessed by comparing pre-to postoperative SSEP. Methods: A total of 2143 pre-, intra-and postoperative tibial and median SSEP recorded in 25 patients undergoing spine surgery owing to idiopathic scoliosis were analyzed. The anesthesia protocol consisted of a computerized target controlled infusion (TCI) device for propofol and intravenous application of an opioid. Results: Anesthesia induced a significant and comparable prolongation of the tibial SSEP onset, P40 and P60 latencies, while the N50 latency was less changed. Throughout anesthesia, latencies of median (onset, N20, P25 and N35) and tibial (onset, P40, N50 and P60) SSEP showed mean variations of less than 6%. The intraoperative SSEP amplitudes were less stable with a relative standard deviation of 30-40%. In uneventful spine surgery, the postoperative tibial SSEP were not significantly changed in comparison to preoperative recordings. Conclusions: By using a standardized anesthesia protocol, the impact of anesthesia on preoperative SSEP can be predicted. Furthermore, the controlled application of sedatives and analgesics allows recording of stable SSEP parameters for intraoperative monitoring purposes. As in uneventful spine surgery pre-to postoperative SSEP are unchanged the latter comparison can be applied as an additional perioperative neuromonitoring procedure to assess the influence of spine surgery or other invasive interventions on spinal cord function.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.