記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

BACKGROUND: Low-dose droperidol has been reported to suppress the amplitude of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCE-MEPs), but no randomized controlled trials have been conducted to assess this. This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial aimed to test the hypothesis that low-dose droperidol reduced TCE-MEP amplitudes. METHODS: Twenty female patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, aged between 12 and 20 years, and scheduled to undergo corrective surgery were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (20 µg/kg) or 0.9% saline. After recording baseline TCE-MEPs, the test drug was administered, following which TCE-MEP recordings were carried out every 2 minutes for up to 10 minutes. The primary outcome was the minimum relative TCE-MEP amplitude (peak-to-peak amplitude, percentage of baseline value) recorded in the left tibialis anterior muscle. Secondary outcomes included minimum relative MEP amplitudes recorded from all other muscle groups monitored in the study. Data are expressed as medians (interquartile range). RESULTS: The TCE-MEP amplitude of the left tibialis anterior muscle was significantly reduced following droperidol administration compared with saline (37% [30% to 55%] vs. 76% [58% to 93%], respectively, P<0.01). In the other muscles, the amplitudes were reduced in the droperidol group, except for the bilateral abductor pollicis brevis and the left quadriceps femoris muscles. The relative amplitude of the bilateral F waves recorded from the gastrocnemius was decreased in the droperidol group. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose droperidol (20 µg/kg) reduced TCE-MEP amplitudes. Anesthesiologists should pay attention to the timing of droperidol administration during intraoperative TCE-MEP recordings, even if used in a low dose.

DOI： 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000784

PubMed

researchmap

記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

PURPOSE: Propofol inhibits the amplitudes of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials (TCE-MEP) in a dose-dependent manner. However, the mechanisms of this effect remain unknown. Hence, we investigated the spinal mechanisms of the inhibitory effect of propofol on TCE-MEP amplitudes by evaluating evoked electromyograms (H-reflex and F-wave) under general anesthesia. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm, interventional study including 15 patients scheduled for spine surgery under general anesthesia. Evoked electromyograms of the soleus muscle and TCE-MEPs were measured at three propofol concentrations using target-controlled infusion (TCI: 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 µg/mL). The primary outcome measure was the left H-reflex amplitude during TCI of 4.0- compared to 2.0-µg/mL propofol administration. RESULTS: The median [interquartile range] amplitudes of the left H-reflex were 4.71 [3.42-6.60] and 5.6 [4.17-7.46] in the 4.0- and 2.0-μg/mL TCI groups (p = 0.4, Friedman test), respectively. There were no significant differences in the amplitudes of the right H-reflex and the bilateral F-wave among these groups. However, the TCE-MEP amplitudes significantly decreased with increased propofol concentrations (p < 0.001, Friedman test). CONCLUSION: Propofol did not affect the amplitudes of the H-reflex and the F-wave, whereas TCE-MEP amplitudes were reduced at higher propofol concentrations. These results suggested that propofol can suppress the TCE-MEP amplitude by inhibiting the supraspinal motor pathways more strongly than the excitability of the motor neurons in the spinal cord.

DOI： 10.1007/s00540-021-02927-7

PubMed

researchmap

記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

BACKGROUND: An epidurally administered local anesthetic acts primarily on the epidural nerve roots and can act directly on the spinal cord through the dural sleeve. We hypothesized that epidurally administered ropivacaine would reduce the amplitude of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials by blocking nerve conduction in the spinal cord. Therefore, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Thirty adult patients who underwent lung surgery were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 groups, based on the ropivacaine concentration: the 0.2% group, the 0.375% group, and the 0.75% group. The attending anesthesiologists, neurophysiologists, and patients were blinded to the allocation. The epidural catheter was inserted at the T5-6 or T6-7 interspace by a paramedian approach, using the loss of resistance technique with normal saline. General anesthesia was induced and maintained using propofol and remifentanil. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials were elicited by a train of 5 pulses with an interstimulus interval of 2 milliseconds by using a constant-voltage stimulator and were recorded from the tibialis anterior muscle. Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) were evoked by electrical tibial nerve stimulation at the popliteal fossa. After measuring the baseline values of these evoked potentials, 10 mL of epidural ropivacaine was administered at the 0.2%, 0.375%, or 0.75% concentration. The baseline amplitudes and latencies recorded before administering ropivacaine were defined as 100%. Our primary end point was the relative amplitude of the motor-evoked potentials at 60 minutes after the epidural administration of ropivacaine. We analyzed the amplitudes and latencies of these evoked potentials by using the Kruskal-Wallis test and used the Dunn multiple comparison test as the post hoc test for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The data are expressed as the median (interquartile range). Sixty minutes after epidurally administering ropivacaine, the motor-evoked potential amplitude was lower in the 0.75% group (7% [3%-18%], between-group difference P < .001) and in the 0.375% group (52% [43%-59%]) compared to that in the 0.2% group (96% [89%-105%]). The latency of SSEP was longer in the 0.75% group compared to that in the 0.2% group, but the amplitude was unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurally administered high-dose ropivacaine lowered the amplitude of motor-evoked potentials and prolonged the onset latencies of motor-evoked potentials and SSEPs compared to those in the low-dose group. High-dose ropivacaine can act on the motor pathway through the dura mater.

DOI： 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005236

PubMed

researchmap

記述言語：英語  

DOI： 10.5114/ait.2021.104098

PubMed

researchmap

記述言語：英語   掲載種別：研究論文（学術雑誌）  

Low-dose droperidol has been widely used as an antiemetic during and after surgery. Although high-dose droperidol affects motor-evoked potential, the effects of low-dose droperidol on motor-evoked potential amplitude are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether low-dose droperidol affects motor-evoked potential amplitude. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent spine surgery under general anesthesia with motor-evoked potential monitoring from February 2016 to 2017. The outcome was the motor-evoked potential amplitude of the bilateral abductor pollicis brevis muscle, tibialis anterior muscle, and abductor hallucis muscle within 1 and 1-2 h after droperidol administration, compared with the baseline motor-evoked potential value. Thirty-four patients were analyzed. The median dose of droperidol was 21 µg/kg. The motor-evoked potential amplitudes of all muscles were significantly reduced after droperidol administration and recovered to baseline values within 2 h. The reduction of all motor-evoked potential amplitudes after droperidol administration was 37-45% of baseline values. There were no significant differences in other drugs administered. There were no serious adverse effects of droperidol administration. Motor-evoked potential amplitude was suppressed by low-dose droperidol. During intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring in spine surgery, anesthesiologists should pay careful attention to the timing of administration of droperidol, even at low doses. Based on the results of this study, we are conducting a randomized controlled trial.

DOI： 10.1007/s10877-020-00464-4

PubMed

researchmap