Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T03:48:31.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Quarter Century's Experience with Intraoperative Nerve Action Potential Recording

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

David G. Kline  and
Leo T. Happel
David G. Kline*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, LSU School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
Leo T. Happel
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, LSU School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana
*
Department of Neurosurgery. LSUMC, Charity and Ochsner Hospitals, 1542 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A. 70112
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The rationale, basic considerations, and technique of intraoperative nerve action potential (NAP) recording have been reviewed. Experience using this technique in several thousand patients over a 25 year period has been summarized. The most frequent serious nerve injury is one that leaves it in continuity. Resection of such a lesion that is regenerating does the patient a great disservice as does exploration without repair of one with little or no potential for useful spontaneous recovery. The frequency of lesions in continuity as well as the difficulties in evaluating them in the early months by electromyography let alone by surgical inspection has led to the development of intraoperative NAP recording. Where neurolysis was based on a recordable NAP across a lesion in continuity, 93% recovered good function. Where resection of the lesion was based on absence of an NAP, the injury was, without exception, neurotmetic and/or one with poor potential for useful recovery without repair. Some lesions had an NAP across their lesion but a portion of the cross-sectional area appeared more seriously injured. By use of NAP recordings, a split repair was done and usually with good results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 3 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1993

References

1.Zachary, R, Roaf, R. Lesion in continuity. In: Seddon, H, ed. Peripheral Nerve Injuries. Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Med Res Council Spec Report Series No. 282, 1954.Google Scholar
2.Gilliatt, R.Physical injury to peripheral nerves: physiologic and electrodiagnostic aspects. Mayo Clin Proc 1981; 56: 361–370.Google ScholarPubMed
3.Seddon, HJ. Surgical Disorders of the Peripheral Nerves. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1972; 68–88.Google Scholar
4.Sunderland, S.Nerves and Nerve Injuries, 2nd Edition. Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone, 1978; 70–79.Google Scholar
5.Kline, DG, Hackett, ER. Reappraisal of timing for exploration of civilian peripheral nerve injuries. Surgery 1975; 78: 54–65.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Kline, DG, Hackett, ER. The neuroma-in-continuity: a management problem. In: Wilkins, RH, Rengachary, SS, eds. Neurosurgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984; 1864-1871.Google Scholar
7.Hudson, A, Hunter, D. Timing of peripheral nerve repair: important local neuropathologic factors. Clin Neurosurg 1977; 24: 392–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Lyons, W, Woodhall, B. Atlas of Peripheral Nerve Injuries. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 1949.Google Scholar
9.Woodhall, B, Nulsen, F, White, J, Davis, L.Neurosurgical implications. In: Woodhall, B, Beebe, G, eds. Peripheral Nerve Degeneration. Washington DC: VA Monograph, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957.Google Scholar
10.Grundfest, H, Oester, YT, Beebe, GW. Electrical evidence of regeneration. In: Woodhall, B, Beebe, GW, eds. Peripheral Nerve Degeneration. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956.Google Scholar
11.Kimura, J.Electrodiagnosis in Diseases of Nerve and Muscle: Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1983.Google Scholar
12.Kline, DG, Hackett, ER, Happel, L. Review of surgical lesions of the brachial plexus. Arch Neurology 1985; 43: 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Sumner, A.The Physiology of Peripheral Nerve Disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co., 1980.Google Scholar
14.Nulsen, FE, Lewey, FH. Intraneural bipolar stimulation: a new aid in the assessment of nerve injuries. Science 1947; 106: 301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Collins, W, O'Leary, J, Hunt, W, Schartz, H. An electrophysiological study of nerve degeneration in the cat. J Neurosurg 1955; 12: 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Erlanger, J, Gasser, H.Electrical Signs of Nervous Activity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1937; 2–33.Google Scholar
17.Gutmann, E, Sanders, F.Recovery of fiber numbers and diameters in the regeneration of peripheral nerves. J Physiol 1943; 101: 489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Hodgkin, A, Huxley, A.Currents carried by sodium and potassium ions through the membrane of the giant axon on Loglio. J Physiol 1952; 116: 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Kline, DG, DeJonge, BR. Evoked potentials to evaluate peripheral nerve injuries. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1968; 127: 1239–1250.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Kline, DG, Hackett, ER, May, PR.Evaluation of nerve injuries by evoked potentials and electromyography. J Neurosurg 1969; 31: 128–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kline, DG, Nulsen, FE.The neuroma-in-continuity: its preoperative and operative management. Surg Clin North Am 1972; 52: 1189–1209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Terzis, J, Dykes, R.Electrophysiological recordings in peripheral nerve surgery: a review. J Hand Surg 1976; 1: 52–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Zalis, A, Rodriguez, A, Oester, Y, Maius, D.Evaluation of nerve degeneration by means of evoked potentials. J Bone Jt Surg 1972; 54A: 1246–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Vanderark, G, Meyer, G, Kline, D, Kempe, L.Peripheral nerve injuries studied by evoked potential recordings. Mil Med 1970; 135: 90–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Hudson, AR, Trammer, B.Brachial plexus injuries. In: Wilkins, R, Rengachary, S, eds. Neurosurgery, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1985.Google Scholar
26.Van, Beek A, Hubble, B, Kinkead, L.Clinical use of nerve stimulation and recording. Plast Reconst Surg 1983; 71: 225–232.Google Scholar
27.Kaplan, B, Friedman, W, Gravenstein, D.Intraoperative electrophysiology in treatment of peripheral nerve injuries. J Fla Med Assoc 1984; 71: 400–403.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Friedman, W.The electrophysiology of peripheral nerve injuries. NS Clinics of NA 1992; (2) 1: 43–56.Google Scholar
29.McGillicuddy, J.Clinical decision making in brachial plexus injuries. NS Clinics of NA 1992; (2) 1: 137–150.Google Scholar
30.Dorfman, L, et al.Conduction Velocity Distributions: A Population Approach to Electrophysiology of Nerve. New York: WR Liss, 1981.Google Scholar
31.Dawson, GD. The relative excitability and conduction velocity of sensory and motor nerve fibers in man. J Physiol (Lond) 1956; 131: 436–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Waxman, SG. Physiology and Pathobiology of Axons. New York: Raven Press, 1978.Google Scholar
33.Gilliatt, RW, Sears, TA.Sensory nerve action potentials in patients with peripheral nerve lesions. J Neurol Neurosurg Psych 1958; 21: 109–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Happel, L, Kline, D.Nerve lesions in continuity. In: Gelbennan, R, ed. Operative Nerve Repair and Reconstruction. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co., 1991.Google Scholar
35.Williams, HB, Terzis, JK. Single fascicular recordings: an intraoperative diagnostic tool for the management of peripheral nerve lesions. Plast Reconstr Surg 1976; 57: 562–569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed