Traditional measurement of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) depends on averaging of many recordings, which introduces loss of dynamic variability. Single trial extraction provides a new measurement of SEP latency variability for evaluation of the neurodynamic status of the somatosensory pathway. The aim of this study was to apply a single trial SEP to diagnose the severity of demyelination in a chronical spinal cord injury model. The severity of demyelination was measured by myelin area and staining intensity at the ventral column (VC), lateral column (LC), and dorsal column (DC) by histological examination with Luxol fast blue staining. Results showed that there was a strong negative correlation of the latency variability of trial-to-trial SEP with the myelin area in three columns (DC: r=-0.90, p<0.05; VC: r=-0.91, p<0.05; LC: r=-0.89, p<0.05), and the staining intensity in three columns (DC: r=-0.95, p<0.05; VC: r=-0.94, p<0.05; LC: r=-0.93, p<0.05). These data suggest that single trial SEP can provide a dynamic indicator of spinal cord demyelination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
YoungW.F. (2000). Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a common cause of spinal cord dysfunction in older persons. Am. Fam. Physician, 62, 1064–1070.
2.
HuY., WenC.Y., LiT.H., CheungM.H., WuX.K., and LukK.D. (2011). Somatosensory-evoked potentials as an indicator for the extent of ultrastructural damage of the spinal cord after chronic compressive injuries in a rat model. Clin. Neurophysiol. 122, 1440–1447.
3.
BerthierE., TurjmanF., and MauguièreF. (1996). Diagnostic utility of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) in presurgical assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurophysiol. Clin. 26, 300–310.
4.
MorishitaY., HidaS., NaitoM., and MatsushimaU. (2005). Evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using somatosensory-evoked potentials. Int. Orthop. 29, 343–346.
5.
GanesT. (1980). Somatosensory conduction times and peripheral, cervical and cortical evoked potentials in patients with cervical spondylosis. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 43, 683–689.
6.
NuwerM.R., EmersonR.G., GallowayG., LegattA.D., LopezJ., MinahanR., YamadaT., GoodinD.S., ArmonC., ChaudhryV., GronsethG.S., and HardenC.L. (2012). Evidence-based guideline update: intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 29, 101–108.
7.
GunnarssonT., KrassioukovA.V., SarjeantR., and FehlingsM.G. (2004). Real-time continuous intraoperative electromyographic and somatosensory evoked potential recordings in spinal surgery: correlation of clinical and electrophysiologic findings in a prospective, consecutive series of 213 cases. Spine, 29, 677–684.
8.
LukK.D., HuY., WongY.W., and CheungK.M. (2001). Evaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Spine, 26, 1772–1777.
9.
LongH.Q., LiG.S., LinE.J., XieW.H., ChenW.L., and LukK.D., and HuY. (2013). Is the speed of chronic compression an important factor for chronic spinal cord injury rat model?. Neurosci. Lett. 545, 75–80.
10.
NuwerM.R., DawsonE.G., CarlsonL.G., KanimL.E., and ShermanJ.E. (1995). Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 96, 6–11.
11.
DeletisV., and SalaF. (2008). Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin. Neurophysiol. 119, 248–264.
12.
MaY., HuY., ValentinN., GeocadinR. G., ThakorN. V., and JiaX. (2011). Time jitter of somatosensory evoked potentials in recovery from hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. J. Neurosci. Methods, 201, 355–360.
13.
TingK.H., FungP.C., ChangC.Q., and ChanF.H. (2006). Automatic correction of artifact from single-trial event-related potentials by blind source separation using second order statistics only. Med. Eng. Phys. 28, 780–794.
14.
TangA., SutherlandM., and WangY. (2005). Contrasting single-trial ERPs between experimental manipulations: improving differentiability by blind source separation. Neuroimage, 29, 335–346.
15.
LiuH., ChangC.Q., LukK.D., and HuY. (2011). Comparison of blind source separation methods in fast somatosensory-evoked potential detection. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 28, 170–177.
16.
CuiH., WangY., LiX., XieX., XuS., and HuY. (2015). Trial-to-trial latency variability of somatosensory evoked potentials as a prognostic indicator for surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 12, 49.
17.
NakaiS., SonooM., and ShimizuT. (2008). Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) for the evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: utility of the onset-latency parameters. Clin. Neurophysiol. 119, 2396–2404.
18.
CuiH., WangY., XieX., XuS., and HuY. (2015). Single trial extraction of somatosensory evoked potentials for monitoring spinal cord injury: an animal study. J. Med. Imag. Health Info. 5, 385–390.
19.
LongH.Q., XieW.H., ChenW.L., XieW.L., XuJ.H., and HuY. (2014). Value of micro-CT for monitoring spinal microvascular changes after chronic spinal cord compression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15, 12061–12073.
20.
KimP., HaisaT., KawamotoT., KirinoT., and WakaiS. (2004). Delayed myelopathy induced by chronic compression in the rat spinal cord. Ann. Neurol. 55, 503–511.
21.
LiX., LiG.S., LukD.K., and HuY. (2017). Neurorestoratology evidence in an animal model with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J. Neurorestoratol. 5, 21–29.
22.
LiuH.T., XieX.B., XuS.P., WanF., and HuY. (2013). One-unit second-order blind identification with reference for short transient signals. Info. Sci. 227, 90–101.
23.
TetreaultL.A., DettoriJ.R., WilsonJ.R., SinghA., NouriA., FehlingsM.G., BrodtE.D., and JacobsW.B. (2013). Systematic review of magnetic resonance imaging characteristics that affect treatment decision making and predict clinical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine, 38, Suppl, S89–S110.
24.
TetreaultL.A., NouriA., SinghA., FawcettM., and FehlingsM.G. (2014). Predictors of outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy undergoing surgical treatment: a survey of members from AOSpine International. World Neurosurg. 81, 623–633.
25.
HuY., DingY., RuanD., WongY.W., CheungK.M., and LukK.D. (2008). Prognostic value of somatosensory-evoked potentials in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine, 33, E305–E310.
26.
DingY., HuY., RuanD. K., and ChenB. (2008). Value of somatosensory evoked potentials in diagnosis, surgical monitoring and prognosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Chin. Med. J. 121, 1374–1378.
27.
HuY., LukK.D., LuW.W., HolmesA., and LeongJ.C. (2001). Prevention of spinal cord injury with time-frequency analysis of evoked potentials: an experimental study. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, 71, 732–740.
28.
Al-NashashH., FatooN.A., MirzaN.N., AhmedR.I., AgrawalG., ThakorN.V., and AllA.H. (2009). Spinal cord injury detection and monitoring using spectral coherence. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 56, 1971–1979.
29.
MadhokJ., IyerS., ThakorN.V., and MaybhateA. (2010). Characterization of neurologic injury using novel morphological analysis of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., 2798–2801.
30.
MirH., Al-NashashH., KerrD., AllA., and ThakorN. (2011). Spinal cord injury evaluation using morphological difference of somatosensory evoked potentials. International Conference on Bioinformatics & Biomedical Engineering. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/icbbe.2011.5780408.
31.
OlenkoA., WongK.T., MirH., and Al-NashashH. (2016). Generalised correlation index for quantifying signal morphological similarity. Electronics Lett. 52, 1832–1834.
32.
MirH., Al-NashashH., KortelainenJ., and AllA. (2017). Novel modeling of somatosensory evoked potentials for the assessment of spinal cord injury. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 65, 511–520.
33.
MirH., Al-NashashH., KerrD., ThakorN., and AllA. (2010). Histogram based quantification of spinal cord injury level using somatosensory evoked potentials. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 4942–4945.
34.
BraunJ.C., HanleyD.F., and ThakorN.V. (1996). Detection of neurological injury using time-frequency analysis of the somatosensory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 100, 310–318.
35.
HuY., LiuH., and LukK. (2011). Time-frequency analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 28, 504–511.
36.
AgrawalG., ShermanD., MaybhateA., GorelikM., KerrD.A., ThakorN.V., and AllA.H. (2010). Slope analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials in spinal cord injury for detecting contusion injury and focal demyelination. J. Clin. Neurosci. 17, 1159–1164.
37.
LukK.D., HuY., WongY.W., and LeongJ.C. (1999). Variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials in different stages of scoliosis surgery. Spine, 24, 1799–1804.
38.
ChenZ.Y., WongH.K., and ChanY. (2004). Variability of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 17, 470–646.
39.
KaradimasS.K., GatzounisG., and FehlingsM.G. (2015). Pathobiology of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Eur. Spine J. 24, Suppl 2, 132–138.
40.
KaneN.M. and OwareA. (2012). Nerve conduction and electromyography studies. J. Neurol. 259, 1502–1508.
41.
BabaH., MaezawaY., ImuraS., KawaharaN., and TomitaK. (1996). Spinal cord evoked potential monitoring for cervical and thoracic compressive myelopathy. Paraplegia, 34, 100–1006.
42.
GledhillR.F., HarrisonB.M., and McDonaldW.I. (1973). Demyelination and remyelination after acute spinal cord compression. Exp. Neurol. 38, 472–487.
