| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,700,000)
Fiscal Year 1987: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 1986: ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
1. Comparative studies of transcranial stimulation (TCS) using Digitimer 180 and DISA 1500: D180 is inadeguate in intraoperative recording spinal MEP from cervical cord, because of large artifacts and slow freguency of stimulation.
2. Trials making adevice of electrode holder for intraoperative funicules stimulation and recording: A frame made by stainless steel bar and joint was uselful for fixing an electrode with ball joint clamp.
3. Comparison among spinal-,nerve root-and mediann.-MEP:wave form of spinal MEP might be not implicated in activation of peripheraln.-MEP. Under deep anesthesia, root-and mediann.-MEP are more suppressed than spinal MEP Root MEP is so unstable, in recording of brachial plexus injury that another testing is required for evaluation of root avulsion.
4. Topographic difference of spinal cord surface MEP : Spinal MEP was largest at the lateral and anterior aspect of the spinal cord by bipolar TCS in 4 cases of spinal cord tumor. Spinal MEP recorded from surrounding Spinal cord was in value as spinal cord monitoring in intramedullary spinal cord tumors.
5. Safety of TCS : In TCS through the inner table (0.4 mm in thickness), blood brain barrier (BBB) at the surface of the cortex was broken down in go c/ph. SEP disappeared in negative phase in 180 c/ph. Haemorrhage, intravascular coagulation and no responses of SEP were observed in 450 c/ph, but the SEP recorded to the original amplitude. In the cases of the inner table with thickness of 2 mm as in haman, any changes mentioned above were not observed. So, it was concluded that clinical. TCS was safe in respct to SEP and BBB change.
|
