Indian Journal of Anaesthesia  
About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions
Home | Login  | Users Online: 1743  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size    




 
 Table of Contents    
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 142-143  

Monitoring intraoperative motor-evoked potentials in a pregnant patient


Department of Neuroanaesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Yashoda Hospitals, Secunderabad, Telangana, India

Date of Web Publication11-Feb-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Astha Palan
Department of Neuroanaesthesia and Neurocritical Care, Yashoda Hospitals, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500 003
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ija.IJA_716_18

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Manohar N, Palan A, Manchala RK, Manjunath S T. Monitoring intraoperative motor-evoked potentials in a pregnant patient. Indian J Anaesth 2019;63:142-3

How to cite this URL:
Manohar N, Palan A, Manchala RK, Manjunath S T. Monitoring intraoperative motor-evoked potentials in a pregnant patient. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 5];63:142-3. Available from: http://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2019/63/2/142/251982



Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is used to monitor the integrity of neuronal pathways and is necessary in neurosurgical procedures to prevent the occurrence of new onset neurodeficits. But its use and safety in pregnant cases is sparsely reported and remains to be established.[1],[2] This case report describes the rare experience of successful intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during pregnancy with no adverse foetal effects.


   Case Report Top


A 28-year-old lady with 26 weeks of gestation presented with headache, seizures and no focal neurological deficits. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a right intraventricular tumour (6.2 × 4.4 × 5 cm) extending to right thalamus [Figure 1]. The patient was scheduled for right frontoparietal craniotomy and excision under general anaesthesia with the use of intraoperative neurophysiological neuromonitoring. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were monitored continuously in the intraoperative period, as the tumour was close to thalamus and internal capsule. Performing MEP stimulation in the pregnant patient could induce uterine hypercontractions with a possibility of adverse effects on the foetus.
Figure 1: Magnetic resonance imaging scan showing right intraventricular tumour

Click here to view


After counselling for probable foetal loss, general anaesthesia was induced with intravenous administration of fentanyl 2 mcg/kg and propofol 2 mg/kg. Injection atracurium (0.5 mg/kg) was used to facilitate tracheal intubation. A wedge-shaped support was placed under right hip to prevent inferior vena caval compression. After tracheal intubation, injection propofol (4–5 mg/kg/hour) and injection fentanyl (1 mcg/kg/hour) infusions were started. General anaesthesia was maintained with titration of propofol and fentanyl infusions maintaining a bispectral index (BIS) values between 30 and 50. Electrocardiogram (ECG), SpO2, arterial blood pressure (BP), capnography, BIS, train of four neuromuscular monitoring, and temperature were monitored continuously. Continuous foetal heart rate monitoring was done by placing the ECHO probe in the left infraumbilical area. Cardiotocography (CTG) was placed in same location to monitor continuously foetal heart rate and uterine contractions.

Medtronics NIM Eclipse system was used for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Corkscrew electrodes (C3, C4 according to the 10–20 system) were placed on the scalp and paired needle electrodes were placed bilaterally in two muscle groups of both upper (deltoid and adductor pollicis brevis) and lower limbs (tibialis anterior and abductor hallucislongus). High current transcranial electrical stimulation[3] for MEPs can induce hypercontractions in the uterus. Hence, the number of MEP stimulations was limited to minimum and the lowest possible currents (150–175 volts) were used to get evoked potentials. Each time the MEP stimulation was delivered, the uterine contractions on CTG increased transiently above 50 and then dropped back [Figure 2]. Tocolytics (magnesium sulphate, isosuxprine and terbutaline) were kept on standby for possible use in case uterine hypercontractions (more than 50 contractions) occurred after discussions with the obstetric team. No significant changes in MEP amplitude were observed intraoperatively. At the end of the procedure, trachea was extubated without any new onset motor or sensory deficits. Normal foetal heart rate and viability was confirmed with continuous CTG and foetal ECHO during and after the completion of the surgical procedure.
Figure 2: Foetal CTG monitor showing foetal heart rate and uterine contractions, red arrow showing uterine contractions rising up to 50 when MEP train of stimulus was delivered

Click here to view


The surgery for tumour resection lasted for 320 minutes during which a total of 18 trains of MEPs were applied. The stimulation parameters for MEP were a pulse width of 75 μs, number of pulses applied 7, voltage of 175 V, and a train rate of 333 per se cond.


   Discussion Top


A multidisciplinary team approach involving neuroanaesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and obstetricians with continuous monitoring of the foetal wellbeing by foetal heart rate, uterine contractions by CTG, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring by MEP were useful in our case. In our case, no deleterious intraoperative or postoperative complications were seen in mother and foetus with the use of MEP monitoring. Keeping the voltage minimum for MEP, reducing number of MEP stimulation trains, monitoring of foetal heart rate and uterine tone are some of the strategies which can be considered in such cases.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Pastor J, Pulido P, López A, Sola RG. Monitoring of motor and somatosensory systems in a 26-week pregnant woman. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:1231-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Guerrero-Domínguez R, González-González G, Rubio-Romero R, Federero-Martínez F, Jiménez I. Anaesthetic management of excision of a cervical intraspinal tumor with intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring in a pregnant woman at 29 weeks. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2016;63:297-300.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Szelényi A, Kothbauer KF, Deletis V. Transcranial electric stimulation for intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: Stimulation parameters and electrode montages. ClinNeurophysiol 2007;118:1586-95.  Back to cited text no. 3
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Case Report
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed774    
    Printed3    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal