The Utility of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring in Predicting Postoperative Supplementary Motor Area Syndrome and Motor Function Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hemiparesis following frontal lobe lesion resection is alarming, and predicting motor function recovery is challenging. Supplementary motor area (SMA) syndrome following resection of frontal lobe lesions is often indistinguishable from postoperative motor deficit due to surgical injury of motor tracts. We aimed to describe the use of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) with motor evoked potential monitoring data as a diagnostic tool to distinguish between SMA syndrome and permanent motor deficit (PMD). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 235 patients undergoing craniotomy and resection with TES-MEP monitoring for a frontal lobe lesion was performed. Patients who developed immediate postoperative motor deficit were included. Motor deficit and TES-MEP findings were categorized by muscle group as left upper extremity, left lower extremity, right upper extremity, or right lower extremity. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the predictive value of stable TES-MEP for SMA syndrome versus PMD. RESULTS: This study included 20 patients comprising 29 cases of immediate postoperative motor deficit by muscle group. Of these, 27 cases resolved and were diagnosed as SMA syndrome, and 2 cases progressed to PMD. TES-MEP stability was significantly associated with diagnosis of SMA syndrome (P = 0.015). TES-MEP showed excellent diagnostic utility with a sensitivity and positive predictive value of 100% and 92.6%, respectively. Negative predictive value was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary SMA syndrome is difficult to distinguish from PMD immediately postoperatively. TES-MEP may be a useful intraoperative adjunct that may aid in distinguishing SMA syndrome from PMD secondary to surgical injury.

Covert Tracking to Visual Stimuli in Comatose Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated video eye tracking (VET) in comatose patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We recruited healthy participants and unresponsive patients with TBI. We surveyed the patients' clinicians on whether the patient was tracking and performed the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). We recorded eye movements in response to motion of a finger, a face, a mirror, and an optokinetic stimulus using VET glasses. Patients were classified as covert tracking (tracking on VET alone) and overt tracking (VET and clinical examination). The ability to obey commands was evaluated at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: We recruited 20 healthy participants and 10 patients with TBI. The use of VET was feasible in all participants and patients. Two patients demonstrated covert tracking (CRS-R of 6 and 8), 2 demonstrated overt tracking (CRS-R of 22 and 11), and 6 patients had no tracking (CRS-R of 8, 6, 5, 7, 6, and 7). Five of 56 (9%) tracking assessments were missed on clinical examination. All patients with tracking recovered consciousness at follow-up, whereas only 2 of 6 patients without tracking recovered at follow-up. DISCUSSION: VET is a feasible method to measure covert tracking. Future studies are needed to confirm the prognostic value of covert tracking.