4.7 Article

An optimized abnormal muscle response recording method for intraoperative monitoring of hemifacial spasm and its long-term prognostic value

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 38, 期 -, 页码 67-73

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.12.032

关键词

Abnormal muscle response; Hemifacial spasm; Microvascular decompression surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring is used to determine whether decompression is sufficient during microvascular decompression (MVD) for hemifacial spasm (HFS). However, the real offending vessel is sometimes neglected by the neurosurgeons. Here, we reported our experience in using optimized abnormal muscle response (AMR) monitoring and continuous intraoperative monitoring for MVD. Methods: This study included 2161 HFS patients who underwent MVD using traditional (1023 patients) and optimized (1138 patients) methods. Modified AMR monitoring was adopted in our study, with the zygomatic branch of the facial nerve stimulated and the temporal branch, buccal branch, marginal mandibular branch and cervical branch of the facial nerve detected for AMR. These cases were analyzed retrospectively with emphasis on the postoperative outcomes and intraoperative findings. The therapeutic effect was evaluated at day 1, month 3 and year 1 after operation. Results: The relief rate at day 1, month 3 and year 1 after operation for patients who employed optimized AMR recording method was 95.1%, 97.4% and 99.3%, comparing with 92.2%, 95.0% and 97.8% in traditional method. There was significant difference in achieved immediate remission and recovery rate during 12month follow-up between the two groups (P < 0.05). The modified intraoperative monitoring showed the sensitivity of AMR disappearance to judge the relief at day 1, month 3 and year 1 after HFS operation was 95.7%, 96.3% and 97.3%, respectively; the specificity was 44.6%, 43.3% and 50.0%, respectively; the accuracy was 93.1%, 94.9% and 97.4%, respectively.

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

4.7
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