The incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for aneurysm clipping

Laura B. Hemmer, Carine Zeeni, John F. Bebawy, Bernard R. Bendok, Mathew A. Cotton, Neil B. Shah, Dhanesh K. Gupta, Antoun Koht

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

23 Scopus citations


Objective: To review the experience at a single institution with motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring during intracranial aneurysm surgery to determine the incidence of unacceptable movement. Methods: Neurophysiology event logs and anesthetic records from 220 craniotomies for aneurysm clipping were reviewed for unacceptable patient movement or reason for cessation of MEPs. Muscle relaxants were not given after intubation. Transcranial MEPs were recorded from bilateral abductor hallucis and abductor pollicis muscles. MEP stimulus intensity was increased up to 500 V until evoked potential responses were detectable. Results: Out of 220 patients, 7 (3.2%) exhibited unacceptable movement with MEP stimulation - 2 had nociception-induced movement and 5 had excessive field movement. In all but one case, MEP monitoring could be resumed, yielding a 99.5% monitoring rate. Conclusions: With the anesthetic and monitoring regimen, the authors were able to record MEPs of the upper and lower extremities in all patients and found only 3.2% demonstrated unacceptable movement. With a suitable anesthetic technique, MEP monitoring in the upper and lower extremities appears to be feasible in most patients and should not be withheld because of concern for movement during neurovascular surgery.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-104
Number of pages6
JournalWorld neurosurgery
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 2014


  • Intracranial aneurysm
  • Intraoperative monitoring
  • Motor evoked potentials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Clinical Neurology


Dive into the research topics of 'The incidence of unacceptable movement with motor evoked potentials during craniotomy for aneurysm clipping'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this