A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Intraoperative use of transcranial motor/sensory evoked potential monitoring in the clipping of intracranial aneurysms: evaluation of false-positive and false-negative cases. | LitMetric

Objective: Somatosensory and motor evoked potentials (SEPs and MEPs) are often used to prevent ischemic complications during aneurysm surgeries. However, surgeons often encounter cases with suspicious false-positive and false-negative results from intraoperative evoked potential (EP) monitoring, but the incidence and possible causes for these results are not well established. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and reliability of EP monitoring in the microsurgical treatment of intracranial aneurysms by evaluating false-positive and false-negative cases.

Methods: From January 2012 to April 2016, 1514 patients underwent surgery for unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) with EP monitoring at the authors' institution. An EP amplitude decrease of 50% or greater compared with the baseline amplitude was defined as a significant EP change. Correlations between immediate postoperative motor weakness and EP monitoring results were retrospectively reviewed. The authors calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of intraoperative MEP monitoring, as well as the incidence of false-positive and false-negative results.

Results: Eighteen (1.19%) of the 1514 patients had a symptomatic infarction, and 4 (0.26%) had a symptomatic hemorrhage. A total of 15 patients showed motor weakness, with the weakness detected on the immediate postoperative motor function test in 10 of these cases. Fifteen false-positive cases (0.99%) and 8 false-negative cases (0.53%) were reported. Therefore, MEP during UIA surgery resulted in a sensitivity of 0.10, specificity of 0.94, positive predictive value of 0.01, and negative predictive value of 0.99.

Conclusions: Intraoperative EP monitoring has high specificity and negative predictive value. Both false-positive and false-negative findings were present. However, it is likely that a more meticulously designed protocol will make EP monitoring a better surrogate indicator of possible ischemic neurological deficits.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2017.8.JNS17791DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

false-positive false-negative
20
intracranial aneurysms
12
negative predictive
12
evoked potential
8
monitoring
8
potential monitoring
8
false-negative cases
8
1514 patients
8
postoperative motor
8
motor weakness
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!