Background and objective: Former studies revealed conflicting information on the usefulness of intraoperative monitoring of visual evoked potentials. This study was designed to evaluate the characteristics of visual evoked potential recording in surgically anaesthetized patients using the modality of steady-state visual evoked potentials. Methods: In 30 cases with non-cranial surgery steady-state visual evoked potentials were recorded in the awake and surgically anaesthetized patient using total intravenous anaesthesia. For stimulation, goggles with red light-emitting diodes at a frequency of 8.5 Hz were used. A two-channel recording with silver cup electrodes at Oz to Fz and Oz to earlobe was used. All traces were analysed for the presence of the characteristically sinusoidal waveform and amplitudes and latencies of the main peaks were measured. Results: Recordings during surgery demonstrated a minor latency prolongation of 16% and a more pronounced amplitude attenuation of 67% compared to the recordings in the awake patients. These differences were statistically significant (paired t-test, P < 0.001). In surgically anaesthetized patients steady-state visual evoked potentials showed a relatively high intra- and interindividual variability. In four of 30 patients completely stable recordings were obtained, whereas in 14 patients identifiable waves were recordable in only less than 50% of the intraoperative traces. Of the total 1360 traces recorded intraoperatively clearly identifiable steady-state visual evoked potentials patterns were present in 56% of the traces. There was no correlation between the magnitude of the evoked potential amplitude and its stability in intraoperative recordings. Conclusions: We conclude from this study, that steady-state visual evoked potential recordings in the surgically anaesthetized patient appeared to be more stable compared to our earlier findings using transient visual evoked potentials. However, further efforts are necessary to improve the stability of the recordings during surgery and thus allow for a more reliable intraoperative monitoring of visual pathways in routine clinical practice.

Conflicting reports on the usefulness of intraoperative monitoring of visual function by means of visual evoked potentials (VEPs) initiated this study. In 32 patients without visual problems, VEPs were recorded to evaluate the reliability for intraoperative monitoring with total intravenous anesthesia. All patients underwent noncranial surgery. Using a standard technique, VEPs were recorded preoperatively in the awake patients and after induction of anesthesia during surgery. A total of 1436 intraoperative traces were recorded and analyzed. A minor prolongation of the P100 latency of 8% and a more pronounced attenuation of the P100-N145 amplitude of 60% were observed in the anesthetized patients. In most of the anesthetized patients, a stable recording of VEPs was not obtainable. In 4 patients (12.5%), clearly identifiable VEP peaks were detected in more than 90% of the traces recorded intraoperatively. In 88% of the patients, reproducible VEPs were obtained in less than 75% of the intraoperative traces only. We concluded that with standard recording techniques and total intravenous anesthesia, intraoperative VEP monitoring in surgically anesthetized patients is not reliable.

OBJECT:The aim of this observational clinical study was to analyze the impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring (IOM) on the surgical procedure and to assess the benefits of such monitoring.METHODS:Data for 423 patients who underwent neurophysiological IOM with somatosensory evoked potentials and brainstem auditory evoked potentials during neurosurgical procedures were collected prospectively. The patients were classified into one of five groups according to the findings of IOM, the intervention following a monitoring alarm, and the patient's postoperative neurological condition. These groups were as follows: patients with true-positive findings with intervention (42 cases, 9.9%), those with true-positive findings without intervention (42 cases, 9.9%), those with false-positive findings (nine cases, 2.1%), those with false-negative findings (16 cases, 3.8%), and those with true-negative findings (314 cases, 74.2%). Different interventions followed an event identified with monitoring. These interventions were related to dissection in 17 cases, to perfusion pressure in 11, to a limitation of the surgical procedure in five, to vessel clipping in four, to vasospasm in three, and to retraction in one case. In one case the surgical procedure was abandoned. A critical analysis and cautious estimation of the interventions revealed that IOM was helpful in preventing a postoperative deficit in 5.2% of the monitored cases. CONCLUSIONS; For critical analysis of the benefits of IOM one must evaluate not only the findings of IOM and the patient's postoperative neurological condition but also the intraoperative findings and surgical interventions following a monitoring alarm. Evidence is presented that IOM is helpful in preventing a postoperative deficit.