4.6 Article

Feasibility of eliciting the H reflex in the masseter muscle in patients under general anesthesia

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 128, Issue 1, Pages 123-127

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2016.10.092

Keywords

H reflex; Masseter; Brainstem; Trigeminal; Anesthesia; Intraoperative monitoring

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the feasibility of eliciting the brainstem H reflex in the masseter muscle in patients under general anesthesia. Methods: We electrically stimulated the masseteric nerve, a branch of the trigeminal nerve, and recorded ipsilateral masseteric and temporalis muscle responses. We tested eight patients who presented with trigeminal neuralgia; one patient had a temporal bone tumor and one patient had a brainstem arteriovenous malformation. All responses were elicited when patients were under general anesthesia and before the initiation of surgery. Results: The H reflex in the masseter muscle was reliably elicited in 70% of the patients. The reflexes met the usual criteria for the H reflex because they were elicited below the threshold of the direct M response, and their amplitudes decreased when the M response increased with stronger stimuli. The mean onset latencies of the masseter H reflex and the M response were 5.4 +/- 1.3 ms and 2.6 +/- 0.6 ms, respectively. Conclusions: In the present study, we provide evidence of the feasibility of eliciting the H reflex in the masseter muscles of patients under general anesthesia. Significance: The H reflex of the masseter muscle may represent a new method available for intraoperative monitoring. Specifically, this method may be important for the monitoring of brainstem functional integrity, particularly in the midbrain and mid-pons, in addition to the trigeminal nerve path. (C) 2016 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available