Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2021; 82(04): 317-324
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719026
Original Article

Sensitivity and Negative Predictive Value of Motor Evoked Potentials of the Facial Nerve

Nicolas Bovo
1   Neurochirurgie, Université de Genève Centre Médical Universitaire, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Shahan Momjian
2   Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Renato Gondar
3   Division of Neurosurgery, Neurosciences Cliniques, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Philippe Bijlenga
2   Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Karl Schaller
4   Department of Neurosurgery, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
,
Colette Boëx
2   Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to determine the performance of the standard alarm criterion of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the facial nerve in surgeries performed for resections of vestibular schwannomas or of other lesions of the cerebellopontine angle.

Methods This retrospective study included 33 patients (16 with vestibular schwannomas and 17 with other lesions) who underwent the resection surgery with transcranial MEPs of the facial nerve. A reproducible 50% decrease in MEP amplitude, resistant to a 10% increase in stimulation intensity, was applied as the alarm criterion during surgery. Facial muscular function was clinically evaluated with the House–Brackmann score (HBS), pre- and postsurgery at 3 months.

Results In the patient group with vestibular schwannoma, postoperatively, the highest sensitivity and negative predictive values were found for a 30% decrease in MEP amplitude, that is, a criterion stricter than the 50% decrease in MEP amplitude criterion, prone to trigger more warnings, used intraoperatively. With this new criterion, the sensitivity would be 88.9% and the negative predictive value would be 85.7%. In the patient group with other lesions of the cerebellopontine angle, the highest sensitivity and negative predictive values were found equally for 50, 60, or 70% decrease in MEP amplitude. With these criteria, the sensitivities and the negative predictive values would be 100.0%.

Conclusion Different alarm criteria were found for surgeries for vestibular schwannomas and for other lesions of the cerebellopontine angle. The study consolidates the stricter alarm criterion, that is, a criterion prone to trigger early warnings, as found previously by others for vestibular schwannoma surgeries (30% decrease in MEP amplitude).

Keywords

intraoperative neuromonitoring - facial nerve - cerebellopontine angle - motor evoked potentials - vestibular schwannomas


Publication History

Received: 05 March 2019

Accepted: 20 December 2019

Article published online:
21 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Al-Shudifat AR, Kahlon B, Höglund P, Lindberg S, Magnusson M, Siesjo P. A patient-assessed morbidity to evaluate outcome in surgically treated vestibular schwannomas. World Neurosurg 2016; 94: 544-550.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nuño M, Ugiliweneza B, Boakye M, Monfared A. Morbidity of vestibular schwannomas as documented by treating providers. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (02) e142-e149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Agarwal V, Babu R, Grier J. et al. Cerebellopontine angle meningiomas: postoperative outcomes in a modern cohort. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35 (06) E10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Khan SA, Khan B, Khan AA. et al. Microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2015; 27 (03) 539-542
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lee MH, Jee TK, Lee JA, Park K. Postoperative complications of microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: lessons from experience of 2040 cases. Neurosurg Rev 2016; 39 (01) 151-158 , discussion 158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Liu SW, Jiang W, Zhang HQ. et al. Intraoperative neuromonitoring for removal of large vestibular schwannoma: facial nerve outcome and predictive factors. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 133: 83-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kartush JM. Neurography for intraoperative monitoring of facial nerve function. Neurosurgery 1989; 24 (02) 300-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kombos T, Suess O, Kern BC, Funk T, Pietilä T, Brock M. Can continuous intraoperative facial electromyography predict facial nerve function following cerebellopontine angle surgery?. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2000; 40 (10) 501-505 , discussion 506–507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yingling CD, Gardi JN. Intraoperative monitoring of facial and cochlear nerves during acoustic neuroma surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1992; 25 (02) 413-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Prell J, Strauss C, Rachinger J. et al. The intermedius nerve as a confounding variable for monitoring of the free-running electromyogram. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126 (09) 1833-1839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Romstöck J, Strauss C, Fahlbusch R. Continuous electromyography monitoring of motor cranial nerves during cerebellopontine angle surgery. J Neurosurg 2000; 93 (04) 586-593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kartush JM, Niparko JK, Bledsoe SC, Graham MD, Kemink JL. Intraoperative facial nerve monitoring: a comparison of stimulating electrodes. Laryngoscope 1985; 95 (12) 1536-1540
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Silverstein H. Microsurgical instruments and nerve stimulator: monitor for retrolabyrinthine vestibular neurectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986; 94 (03) 409-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Delgado TE, Bucheit WA, Rosenholtz HR, Chrissian S. Intraoperative monitoring of facila muscle evoked responses obtained by intracranial stimulation of the facila nerve: a more accurate technique for facila nerve dissection. Neurosurgery 1979; 4 (05) 418-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cornelius JF, Schipper J, Tortora A. et al. Continuous and dynamic facial nerve mapping during surgery of cerebellopontine angle tumors: clinical pilot series. World Neurosurg 2018; 119: e855-e863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Seidel K, Biner MS, Zubak I, Rychen J, Beck J, Raabe A. Continuous dynamic mapping to avoid accidental injury of the facial nerve during surgery for large vestibular schwannomas. Neurosurg Rev 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Matthies C, Raslan F, Schweitzer T, Hagen R, Roosen K, Reiners K. Facial motor evoked potentials in cerebellopontine angle surgery: technique, pitfalls and predictive value. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2011; 113 (10) 872-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Tokimura H, Sugata S, Yamahata H, Yunoue S, Hanaya R, Arita K. Intraoperative continuous monitoring of facial motor evoked potentials in acoustic neuroma surgery. Neurosurg Rev 2014; 37 (04) 669-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tawfik KO, Walters ZA, Kohlberg GD. et al. Impact of motor-evoked potential monitoring on facial nerve outcomes after vestibular schwannoma resection. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2019; 128 (01) 56-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Acioly MA, Gharabaghi A, Liebsch M, Carvalho CH, Aguiar PH, Tatagiba M. Quantitative parameters of facial motor evoked potential during vestibular schwannoma surgery predict postoperative facial nerve function. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2011; 153 (06) 1169-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fukuda M, Oishi M, Hiraishi T, Saito A, Fujii Y. Intraoperative facial nerve motor evoked potential monitoring during skull base surgery predicts long-term facial nerve function outcomes. Neurol Res 2011; 33 (06) 578-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Howick J, Cohen BA, McCulloch P, Thompson M, Skinner SA. Foundations for evidence-based intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127 (01) 81-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Verst SM, Sucena AC, Maldaun MV, Aguiar PH. Effectiveness of C5 or C6-Cz assembly in predicting immediate post operative facial nerve deficit. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2013; 155 (10) 1863-1869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dong CC, Macdonald DB, Akagami R. et al. Intraoperative facial motor evoked potential monitoring with transcranial electrical stimulation during skull base surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (03) 588-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 House JW, Brackmann DE. Facial nerve grading system. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1985; 93 (02) 146-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Boex C, Haemmerli J, Momjian S, Schaller K. Prognostic values of motor evoked potentials in insular, precental, or postcentral resections. J Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 33 (01) 51-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar