High-frequency (300-500 Hz) direct cortical electrical stimulation elicited muscle responses at a much lower charge intensity compared to traditional low-frequency (50-60 Hz) stimulation.
Does high-frequency direct cortical electrical stimulation improve the recording of motor evoked potentials compared to traditional low-frequency stimulation in patients under general anesthesia?
High-frequency direct cortical stimulation may allow for intraoperative monitoring of motor pathways using lower charge intensities than traditional methods.
This pilot study presents a possible modification of direct cortical electrical stimulation technique for the recording of motor evoked potentials under general anesthesia. The exposed primary motor cortex was stimulated by a short train of anodal rectangular pulses at high frequency (300-500 Hz), while the compound muscle action potentials were recorded from the forearm and hand muscles. When compared with the traditional way of eliciting movement of the extremities by applying a train of pulses at lower frequency (50-60 Hz), muscle responses were obtainable at an intensity of much lower charge. It is suggested that this stimulation achieves a repetitive activation of the corticomotoneuronal tract. Responses could be continuously recorded throughout surgery and seemed to respond to surgical manipulation affecting the motor pathways. This technique seems to be applicable for intraoperative monitoring of motor pathways but requires further optimization of stimulation and recording parameters before wider clinical applications are possible.
Taniguchi et al. (Mon,) conducted a other in Patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia requiring motor pathway monitoring. High frequency (300-500 Hz) direct cortical electrical stimulation vs. Traditional lower frequency (50-60 Hz) stimulation was evaluated on Charge intensity required to elicit muscle responses. High-frequency (300-500 Hz) direct cortical electrical stimulation elicited muscle responses at a much lower charge intensity compared to traditional low-frequency (50-60 Hz) stimulation.