| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,400,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥1,500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,500,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥1,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,900,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
I have conducted basic researches about cerebellar evoked potentials (CEPs) and obtained the following findings;
1.CEPs is evoked on ipsilateral cereballar cortex by a peripheral nerve electrical stimulation, the stimulus ascends through the ventral spinocerebellar tracts in the area perfused by the anterior spinal artery.
2.Somatosenroy evoked potentials (SEPs) was recorded even under 2 MAC of sevoflurane, while motor evoked potentials (MEPs) had been faded away under 0.25 MAC of sevoflurane. CEPs could be recorded at 1.0 MAC of sevoflurane.
3.SEPs was recorded even under ED50 (30mg/kg/hour) of propofol, while MEPs had been faded away under 5mg/kg/hour of propofol. CEPs could be recorded at ED50 of propofol, but its amplitude was small.
4.Five min spinal ischemia reduced the amplitude of SEPs by 10%, but it recovered immediately after reperfusion, while MEPs disappeared by spinal ischemia and it required about 15 min to reemerge. The amplutude of CEPs was reduced by 50% during spinal ischemia, and it recovered promptly by reperfusion. No animals showed motor function deficiency.
5.Ten min spinal ischemia had extinguished all potentials. SEPs and CEPs reemerged 2 and 10 min after reperfusion, respectively, while MEPs was not recorded even 1 hour after reperfusion. All animals showed paraplegia.
In conclusion, CEPs is more sensitive to spinal ischemia than SEPs, and less restrictive about anesthetic drugs selection than MEPs. Clinical trials are necessary to prove usefulness of CEPs.
|
