4.0 Article

Usefulness of Intraoperative Monitoring of Visual Evoked Potentials in Transsphenoidal Surgery

期刊

NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA
卷 54, 期 8, 页码 606-611

出版社

JAPAN NEUROSURGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2014-0023

关键词

visual evoked potential; transsphenoidal surgery; pituitary adenomas; visual outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postoperative visual outcome is a major concern in transsphenoidal surgery (TSS). Intraoperative visual evoked potential (VEP) monitoring has been reported to have little usefulness in predicting postoperative visual outcome. To re-evaluate its usefulness, we adapted a high-power light-stimulating device with electroretinography (ERG) to ascertain retinal light stimulation. Intraoperative VEP monitoring was conducted in TSSs in 33 consecutive patients with seller and parasellar tumors under total venous anesthesia. The detectability rates of N75, P100, and N135 were 94.0%, 85.0%, and 79.0%, respectively. The mean latencies and amplitudes of N75, P100, and N135 were 76.8 +/- 6.4 msec and 4.6 +/- 1.8 mu V, 98.0 +/- 8.6 msec and 5.0 +/- 3.4 mu V, and 122.1 +/- 16.3 msec and 5.7 +/- 2.8 mu V, respectively. The amplitude was defined as the voltage difference from N75 to P100 or P100 to N135. The criterion for amplitude changes was defined as a > 50% increase or 50% decrease in amplitude compared to the control level. The surgeon was immediately alerted when the VEP changed beyond these thresholds, and the surgical manipulations were stopped until the VEP recovered. Among the 28 cases with evaluable VEP recordings, the VEP amplitudes were stable in 23 cases and transiently decreased in 4 cases. In these 4 cases, no postoperative vision deterioration was observed. One patient, whose VEP amplitude decreased without subsequent recovery, developed vision deterioration. Intraoperative VEP monitoring with ERG to ascertain retinal light stimulation by the new stimulus device was reliable and feasible in preserving visual function in patients undergoing TSS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据