Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation:Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses

Reason for Performing Study: So far, only transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) of the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis have been documented for diagnostic evaluation in horses. These allow for differentiating whether lesions are located in either the thoraco-lumbar region or in the cervical myelum and/or brain. Transcranial trapezius MEPs further enable to distinguish between spinal and supraspinal located lesions. No normative data are available. It is unclear whether transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are interchangeable modalities. Objectives: To provide normative data for trapezius MEP parameters in horses for TES and TMS and to discern direct and indirect conduction routes by neurophysiological models that use anatomical geometric characteristics to relate latency times with peripheral (PCV) and central conduction velocities (CCV). Methods: Transcranial electrical stimulation-induced trapezius MEPs were obtained from twelve horses. TES and TMS-MEPs (subgroup 5 horses) were compared intra-individually. Trapezius MEPs were measured bilaterally twice at 5 intensity steps. Motoneurons were localized using nerve conduction models of the cervical and spinal accessory nerves (SAN). Predicted CCVs were verified by multifidus MEP data from two horses referred for neurophysiological assessment. Results: Mean MEP latencies revealed for TES: 13.5 (11.1–16.0)ms and TMS: 19.7 (12–29.5)ms, comprising ∼100% direct routes and for TMS mixed direct/indirect routes of L:23/50; R:14/50. Left/right latency decreases over 10 > 50 V for TES were: –1.4/–1.8 ms and over 10 > 50% for TMS: –1.7/–3.5 ms. Direct route TMS-TES latency differences were 1.88–4.30 ms. 95% MEP amplitudes ranges for TES were: L:0.26–22 mV; R:0.5–15 mV and TMS: L:0.9 – 9.1 mV; R:1.1–7.9 mV. Conclusion: This is the first study to report normative data characterizing TES and TMS induced- trapezius MEPs in horses. The complex trapezius innervation leaves TES as the only reliable stimulation modality. Differences in latency times along the SAN route permit for estimation of the location of active motoneurons, which is of importance for clinical diagnostic purpose. SAN route lengths and latency times are governed by anatomical locations of motoneurons across C2-C5 segments. TES intensity-dependent reductions of trapezius MEP latencies are similar to limb muscles while MEP amplitudes between sides and between TES and TMS are not different. CCVs may reach 180 m/s

Design and optimization of a novel method for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord by multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation in horses

Compared to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) more specifically assesses the motor function of the spinal cord and excludes reproducibility errors from coil repositioning. Objective: to assess the applicability of multipulse TES in horses and retrieve optimal TES parameters to elicit muscular motor-evoked potentials in the m. extensor carpi radialis (ECR) and the m. tibialis cranialis (TC) in a scouting study. This is a prospective observational study in five healthy horses based on TES as a novel alternative to TMS to assess the motor function of the spinal cord for clinical diagnosis in search for optimal settings of stimulation parameters. After sedation, a subcutaneous anesthetic ring block was placed on the forehead around bilateral TES needle electrodes. In each step of a specific parameter optimizing protocol, one parameter was varied while leaving others at default values: TES motor threshold +30 V, n = 3 pulses/train (ppt), interpulse interval (ipi) = 1.3 ms, and 0.1 ms/phase biphasic pulses. Variable parameters were TES voltage (0-200 V), n (1-5 ppt), and ipi (0.5-4.5 ms). A multipulse facilitation factor (MPFF) quantified the motor neuron recruitment gain by multipulse stimulation. Mean latency times, MPFF, optimal ipi, and n for the ECR muscles were, respectively, 18.6 (1.26) (mean[SD]) ms, 7.1 (3.4), 1.25 (0.21) ms, 3.0 (1.4) ppt (left) and 18.4 (1.10) ms, 4.3 (1.4), 1.9 (0.7) ms, 3.5 (1.3) ppt (right) and for the TC muscles, respectively, 34.5 (0.96) ms, 53 (2.4), 1.2 (0.28) ms, 3.3 (1.0) ppt (left) and 33.4 (1.52) ms, 17.5 (21.2), 1.3 (0,17) ms, 3.3 (0.5) ppt (right). Optimal multipulse TES parameters were n = 3 ppt and ipi = 1.2 to 1.3 ms. Multipulse TES is well tolerated and an attractive alternative to TMS. Transcranial electrical stimulation is expected to be a more robust technique than TMS for evaluation of spinal motor function in horses. A better reproducibility of repeated stimulations is expected due to fixed electrodes, and a reduced sensitivity to hyperpolarizing effects of sedatives is expected. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation (TES): normative data for motor evoked potentials in healthy horses

BACKGROUND: There are indications that transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) assesses the motor function of the spinal cord in horses in a more sensitive and reproducible fashion than transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, no normative data of TES evoked motor potentials (MEP) is available. RESULTS: In this prospective study normative data of TES induced MEP wave characteristics (motor latency times (MLT); amplitude and waveform) was obtained from the extensor carpi radialis (ECR) and tibial cranialis (TC) muscles in a group of healthy horses to create a reference frame for functional diagnostic purposes. For the 12 horses involved in the study 95% confidence intervals for MLTs were 16.1-22.6 ms and 31.9-41.1 ms for ECR and TC muscles respectively. Intra-individual coefficients of variation (CV) and mean of MLTs were: ECR: 2.2-8,2% and 4.5% and TC: 1.4-6.3% and 3.5% respectively. Inter-individual CVs for MLTs were higher, though below 10% on all occasions. The mean ± sd of MEP amplitudes was respectively 3.61 ± 2.55 mV (ECR muscle left) and 4.53 ± 3.1 mV (right) and 2.66 ± 2.22 mV (TC muscle left) and 2.55 ± 1.85 mV (right). MLTs showed no significant left versus right differences. All MLTs showed significant (p < 0.05) voltage dependent decreases with slope coefficients of linear regression for ECR: - 0.049; - 0.061 ms/V and TC: - 0.082; - 0.089 ms/V (left; right). There was a positive correlation found between height at withers and MLTs in all 4 muscle groups. Finally, reliable assessment of MEP characteristics was for all muscle groups restricted to a transcranial time window of approximately 15-19 ms. CONCLUSIONS: TES is a novel and sensitive technique to assess spinal motor function in horses. It is easy applicable and highly reproducible. This study provides normative data in healthy horses on TES induced MEPs in the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis muscles bilaterally. No significant differences between MLTs of the left and right side could be demonstrated. A significant effect of stimulation voltage on MLTs was found. No significant effect of height at the withers could be found based upon the results of the current study. A study in which both TMS and TES are applied on the same group of horses is needed

Comparison of Muscle MEPs From Transcranial Magnetic and Electrical Stimulation and Appearance of Reflexes in Horses

Introduction: Transcranial electrical (TES) and magnetic stimulation (TMS) are both used for assessment of the motor function of the spinal cord in horses. Muscular motor evoked potentials (mMEP) were compared intra-individually for both techniques in five healthy horses. mMEPs were measured twice at increasing stimulation intensity steps over the extensor carpi radialis (ECR), tibialis cranialis (TC), and caninus muscles. Significance was set at p < 0.05. To support the hypothesis that both techniques induce extracranially elicited mMEPs, literature was also reviewed. Results: Both techniques show the presence of late mMEPs below the transcranial threshold appearing as extracranially elicited startle responses. The occurrence of these late mMEPs is especially important for interpretation of TMS tracings when coil misalignment can have an additional influence. Mean transcranial motor latency times (MLT; synaptic delays included) and conduction velocities (CV) of the ECR and TC were significantly different between both techniques: respectively, 4.2 and 5.5 ms (MLT TMS --MLT TES ), and -7.7 and -9.9 m/s (CV TMS -CV TES ). TMS and TES show intensity-dependent latency decreases of, respectively, -2.6 (ECR) and -2.7 ms (TC)/30% magnetic intensity and -2.6 (ECR) and -3.2 (TC) ms/30V. When compared to TMS, TES shows the lowest coefficients of variation and highest reproducibility and accuracy for MLTs. This is ascribed to the fact that TES activates a lower number of cascaded interneurons, allows for multipulse stimulation, has an absence of coil repositioning errors, and has less sensitivity for varying degrees of background muscle tonus. Real axonal conduction times and conduction velocities are most closely approximated by TES. Conclusion: Both intracranial and extracranial mMEPs inevitably carry characteristics of brainstem reflexes. To avoid false interpretations, transcranial mMEPs can be identified by a stepwise latency shortening of 15-20 ms when exceeding the transcranial motor threshold at increasing stimulation intensities. A ring block around the vertex is advised to reduce interference by extracranial mMEPs. mMEPs reflect the functional integrity of the route along the brainstem nuclei, extrapyramidal motor tracts, propriospinal neurons, and motoneurons. The corticospinal tract appears subordinate in horses. TMS and TES are interchangeable for assessing the functional integrity of motor functions of the spinal cord. However, TES reveals significantly shorter MLTs, higher conduction velocities, and better reproducibility

Extramuscular Recording of Spontaneous EMG Activity and Transcranial Electrical Elicited Motor Potentials in Horses: Characteristics of Different Subcutaneous and Surface Electrode Types and Practical Guidelines

Introduction: Adhesive surface electrodes are worthwhile to explore in detail as alternative to subcutaneous needle electrodes to assess myogenic evoked potentials (MEP) in human and horses. Extramuscular characteristics of both electrode types and different brands are compared in simultaneous recordings by also considering electrode impedances and background noise under not mechanically secured (not taped) and taped conditions. Methods: In five ataxic and one non-ataxic horses, transcranial electrical MEPs, myographic activity, and noise were simultaneously recorded from subcutaneous needle (three brands) together with pre-gelled surface electrodes (five brands) on four extremities. In three horses, the impedances of four adjacent-placed surface-electrode pairs of different brands were measured and compared. The similarity between needle and surface EMGs was assessed by cross-correlation functions, pairwise comparison of motor latency times (MLT), and amplitudes. The influence of electrode noise and impedance on the signal quality was assessed by a failure rate (FR) function. Geometric means and impedance ranges under not taped and taped conditions were derived for each brand. Results: High coherencies between EMGs of needle-surface pairs degraded to 0.7 at moderate and disappeared at strong noise. MLTs showed sub-millisecond simultaneous differences while sequential variations were several milliseconds. Subcutaneous MEP amplitudes were somewhat lower than epidermal. The impedances of subcutaneous needle electrodes were below 900 Ω and FR = 0. For four brands, the FR for surface electrodes was between 0 and 80% and declined to below 25% after taping. A remaining brand (27G DSN2260 Medtronic) revealed impedances over 100 kΩ and FR = 100% under not taped and taped conditions. Conclusion: Subcutaneous needle and surface electrodes yield highly coherent EMGs and TES–MEP signals. When taped and allowing sufficient settling time, adhesive surface-electrode signals may approach the signal quality of subcutaneous needle electrodes but still depend on unpredictable conditions of the skin. The study provides a new valuable practical guidance for selection of extramuscular EMG electrodes. This study on horses shares common principles for the choice of adhesive surface or sc needle electrodes in human applications such as in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of motor functions of the brain and spinal cord

Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses

Reason for Performing Study: So far, only transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) of the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis have been documented for diagnostic evaluation in horses. These allow for differentiating whether lesions are located in either the thoraco-lumbar region or in the cervical myelum and/or brain. Transcranial trapezius MEPs further enable to distinguish between spinal and supraspinal located lesions. No normative data are available. It is unclear whether transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are interchangeable modalities. Objectives: To provide normative data for trapezius MEP parameters in horses for TES and TMS and to discern direct and indirect conduction routes by neurophysiological models that use anatomical geometric characteristics to relate latency times with peripheral (PCV) and central conduction velocities (CCV). Methods: Transcranial electrical stimulation-induced trapezius MEPs were obtained from twelve horses. TES and TMS-MEPs (subgroup 5 horses) were compared intra-individually. Trapezius MEPs were measured bilaterally twice at 5 intensity steps. Motoneurons were localized using nerve conduction models of the cervical and spinal accessory nerves (SAN). Predicted CCVs were verified by multifidus MEP data from two horses referred for neurophysiological assessment. Results: Mean MEP latencies revealed for TES: 13.5 (11.1-16.0)ms and TMS: 19.7 (12-29.5)ms, comprising ∼100% direct routes and for TMS mixed direct/indirect routes of L:23/50; R:14/50. Left/right latency decreases over 10 > 50 V for TES were: -1.4/-1.8 ms and over 10 > 50% for TMS: -1.7/-3.5 ms. Direct route TMS-TES latency differences were 1.88-4.30 ms. 95% MEP amplitudes ranges for TES were: L:0.26-22 mV; R:0.5-15 mV and TMS: L:0.9 - 9.1 mV; R:1.1-7.9 mV. Conclusion: This is the first study to report normative data characterizing TES and TMS induced- trapezius MEPs in horses. The complex trapezius innervation leaves TES as the only reliable stimulation modality. Differences in latency times along the SAN route permit for estimation of the location of active motoneurons, which is of importance for clinical diagnostic purpose. SAN route lengths and latency times are governed by anatomical locations of motoneurons across C2-C5 segments. TES intensity-dependent reductions of trapezius MEP latencies are similar to limb muscles while MEP amplitudes between sides and between TES and TMS are not different. CCVs may reach 180 m/s

Trapezius Motor Evoked Potentials From Transcranial Electrical Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Reference Data, Characteristic Differences and Intradural Motor Velocities in Horses

Reason for Performing Study: So far, only transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) of the extensor carpi radialis and tibialis cranialis have been documented for diagnostic evaluation in horses. These allow for differentiating whether lesions are located in either the thoraco-lumbar region or in the cervical myelum and/or brain. Transcranial trapezius MEPs further enable to distinguish between spinal and supraspinal located lesions. No normative data are available. It is unclear whether transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are interchangeable modalities. Objectives: To provide normative data for trapezius MEP parameters in horses for TES and TMS and to discern direct and indirect conduction routes by neurophysiological models that use anatomical geometric characteristics to relate latency times with peripheral (PCV) and central conduction velocities (CCV). Methods: Transcranial electrical stimulation-induced trapezius MEPs were obtained from twelve horses. TES and TMS-MEPs (subgroup 5 horses) were compared intra-individually. Trapezius MEPs were measured bilaterally twice at 5 intensity steps. Motoneurons were localized using nerve conduction models of the cervical and spinal accessory nerves (SAN). Predicted CCVs were verified by multifidus MEP data from two horses referred for neurophysiological assessment. Results: Mean MEP latencies revealed for TES: 13.5 (11.1-16.0)ms and TMS: 19.7 (12-29.5)ms, comprising ∼100% direct routes and for TMS mixed direct/indirect routes of L:23/50; R:14/50. Left/right latency decreases over 10 > 50 V for TES were: -1.4/-1.8 ms and over 10 > 50% for TMS: -1.7/-3.5 ms. Direct route TMS-TES latency differences were 1.88-4.30 ms. 95% MEP amplitudes ranges for TES were: L:0.26-22 mV; R:0.5-15 mV and TMS: L:0.9 - 9.1 mV; R:1.1-7.9 mV. Conclusion: This is the first study to report normative data characterizing TES and TMS induced- trapezius MEPs in horses. The complex trapezius innervation leaves TES as the only reliable stimulation modality. Differences in latency times along the SAN route permit for estimation of the location of active motoneurons, which is of importance for clinical diagnostic purpose. SAN route lengths and latency times are governed by anatomical locations of motoneurons across C2-C5 segments. TES intensity-dependent reductions of trapezius MEP latencies are similar to limb muscles while MEP amplitudes between sides and between TES and TMS are not different. CCVs may reach 180 m/s

Experimental Study of the Course of Threshold Current, Voltage and Electrode Impedance During Stepwise Stimulation From the Skin Surface to the Human Cortex

<p>Background: Transcranial electric stimulation as used during intraoperative neurostimulation is dependent on electrode and skull impedances.</p><p>Objective: Threshold currents, voltages and electrode impedances were evaluated with electrical stimulation at 8 successive layers between the skin and the cerebral cortex.</p><p>Patients and Methods: Data of 10 patients (6f, 53 +/- 11 years) were analyzed. Motor evoked potentials were elicited by constant current stimulation with corkscrew type electrodes (CS) at C3 and C4 in line with standard transcranial electric stimulation. A monopolar anodal ball tip shaped probe was used for all other measurements being performed at the level of the skin, dura and cortex, as well as within the skull by stepwise performed burr holes close to C3 resp. C4.</p><p>Results: Average stimulation intensity, corresponding voltage and impedance for muscle MEPs at current motor threshold (CMT) were recorded: CS 54 +/- 23 mA (mean +/- SD), 38 +/- 21 V. 686 +/- 146 Omega; with the monopolar probe on skin 55 +/- 28 mA, 100 +/- 44 V. 1911 +/- 683 Omega and scalp 59 +/- 32 mA, 56 +/- 28 V. 1010 +/- 402 Omega; within the skull bone: outer compact layer 33 23 mA, 91 +/- 53 V. 3734 +/- 2793 Omega; spongiform layer 33 +/- 23 mA, 70 +/- 44 V.2347 +/- 1327 Omega; inner compact layer (ICL) 28 +/- 19 mA, 48 +/- 23 V. 2103 +/- 14980; on dura 25 +/- 12 mA, 17 +/- 12 V.643 +/- 244 Omega and cortex 14 +/- 6 mA, 11 +/- 5 V.859 +/- 300 Omega. CMTs were only significantly different for CS (P = 0.02) and for the monopolar probe between the cortex and ICL (P = 0.03), scalp (P = 0.01) or skin (P = 0.01) and between ICL and CS (P</p><p>Conclusion: The mean stimulation current of the CMT along the extracranial to intracranial anodal trajectory followed a stepwise reduction. VMT was strongly dependent on electrode impedance. CMT within the skull layers was noted to have relative strong shunting currents in scalp layers. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</p>