Ricerca avanzata

Home > Riviste > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences > Fascicoli precedenti > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2011 Settembre;55(3) > Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2011 Settembre;55(3):179-87



Rivista di Neurochirurgia

Indexed/Abstracted in: e-psyche, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Neuroscience Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,651

Periodicità: Bimestrale

ISSN 0390-5616

Online ISSN 1827-1855


Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2011 Settembre;55(3):179-87


Use of multimodal electrophysiological monitoring to predict outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage? – A prospective series

Wachter D. 1,2, Christophis P. 2, Stein M. 2, Oertel M. F. 2

1 Department of Neurosurgery, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany:
2 Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbH, Giessen, Germany

AIM: Electrophysiological monitoring (EM) is still controversial in the prediction of outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). The absence of evoked potentials (EP) is a good predictor for unfavorable, whereas the prediction of favorable outcome may be less useful. Aim of this study was to evaluate, if multimodal EM provides significant information about the patients’ outcome or if this method might be dispensable.
METHODS: Multimodal EP data were recorded sequentially in 51 SAH-patients. The following data were recorded: World Federation of Neurological Surgeons (WFNS-) grade, Fisher grading score, endovascular versus neurosurgical treatment, aneurysm location and clinical outcome according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). Multimodal electrophysiological monitoring included median nerve somatosensory evoked potential (M-SSEP), tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potential (T-SSEP), flash-visual evoked potential (f-VEP), brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) and central conduction time (CCT) of M-SSEP. EP data were recorded sequentially; the first and last studies were evaluated.
RESULTS:No correlation was found between initial and last M-SSEP, T-SSEP, BAEP and initial f-VEP and the patients’ outcome. An ‘unfavorable’ outcome was in conjunction with an initial delayed CCT (>6 ms, P=0.03) and the final f-VEP correlated well with the patients’ outcome (P=0.03).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, neither T-SSEP, f-VEP, BAEP nor CCT can be used as valid predictor for outcome after SAH. The patient’s initial clinical grading still provides the only satisfying predictor, independent of the patient’s clinical course.

lingua: Inglese


inizio pagina