Systematic review of motor evoked potentials monitoring during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm open repair surgery: a diagnostic meta-analysis
Motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring has been used to prevent neurological complications such as paraplegia in patients who underwent thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAA/TAAA) surgery. The object of this study was making a systematic review to survey the performance of MEP monitorin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of anesthesia 2016-12, Vol.30 (6), p.1037-1050 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring has been used to prevent neurological complications such as paraplegia in patients who underwent thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAA/TAAA) surgery. The object of this study was making a systematic review to survey the performance of MEP monitoring during TAA/TAAA open repair surgery. We searched electronic databases for relevant studies. We summarized the diagnostic data with summary sensitivity, summary specificity and forest plots of pooled sensitivity, and conducted sub-group analysis. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We also surveyed the reporting rate of clinical key factors such as methods of anesthesia, surgery, and success rate of MEP. Nineteen studies met our criteria. The results of meta-analysis showed 89.1 % summary sensitivity (95 % confidence interval 47.9–98.6 %) and 99.3 % summary specificity (95 % confidence interval 96.1–99.9 %). Sub-group analysis of pooled sensitivity and specificity by all-or-none cut-off point were better than other cut-off points. The results of the QUADAS-2 were not good. The performance of MEP monitoring was good for detecting postoperative paraplegia in TAA/TAAA open repair surgery. The cut-off point of all-or-none may be the best, according to our review. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0913-8668 1438-8359 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00540-016-2242-x |