{"title":"Review of “Parkinson’s Disease and Other Movement Disorders (2nd Edition),” by Mark J. Edwards, Maria Stamelou, Niall Quinn, and Kailash P. Bhatia","authors":"Richard Vogel","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2023.2183011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2023.2183011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"63 1","pages":"105 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45326087","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"ASET Position Statement on the Best Practices in Ambulatory EEG Monitoring.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2022.2145832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2022.2145832","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"62 4","pages":"260-272"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9220462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Justin W Silverstein, Jacob D Greisman, Nicholas B Dadario, Jung Park, Randy S D'Amico
{"title":"A Cost-Effective, Adjustable, Dynamic Subcortical Stimulation Device - Technical Note.","authors":"Justin W Silverstein, Jacob D Greisman, Nicholas B Dadario, Jung Park, Randy S D'Amico","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2022.2121544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2022.2121544","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Brain mapping and neuromonitoring remain the gold standard for identifying and preserving functional neuroanatomic regions during safe, maximal brain tumor resection. Subcortical stimulation (SCS) can identify white matter tracts and approximate their distance from the leading edge of an advancing resection cavity. Dynamic (continuous) devices permitting simultaneous suction and stimulation have recently emerged as time-efficient alternatives to traditional static (discontinuous) techniques. However, the high cost, fixed cap size, and fixed tube diameter of commercially available suction devices preclude universal adoption. Our objective is to modify available suction devices into monopolar probes for subcortical stimulation mapping. We describe our technique using a novel, cost-effective, dynamic SCS technique as part of our established neuromonitoring protocol. We electrified and insulated a conventional variable suction device using an alligator clip and red rubber catheter, respectively. We adjusted the catheter's length to expose metal on both sides, effectively converting the suction device into a monopolar stimulation probe capable of cortical and subcortical monopolar stimulation that does not differ from commercially available discontinuous or continuous devices. We fashioned a dynamic SCS suction probe using inexpensive materials compatible with all suction styles and sizes. Qualitative and quantitative analysis in future prospective case series is needed to assess efficacy and utility.</p>","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"62 4","pages":"193-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10464767","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David W Allison, Justin W Silverstein, Shanti S Thirumalai, Randy S D'Amico
{"title":"Misconceptions in IONM Part III: Stimulation Repetition Rate Effects on Intraoperative Somatosensory Evoked Potential Amplitude and Latency.","authors":"David W Allison, Justin W Silverstein, Shanti S Thirumalai, Randy S D'Amico","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2022.2141553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2022.2141553","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rate at which stimulation is applied to peripheral nerves is critical to generating high-quality intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) in a timely manner. Guidelines based on a limited study and anecdotal evidence present differing, incorrect, or incomplete stimulation rate recommendations. We examined the effect stimulating the ulnar and tibial nerves at 1.05, 2.79, 5.69, and 8.44 Hz had on cortical, subcortical, and peripheral response amplitude and latency in 10 subjects with neuromuscular blockade (NMB) and 10 without NMB in the operating room under general anesthesia. As the stimulation repetition rate increased, the amplitude of upper and lower extremity cortical responses decreased equally in both groups. The ulnar nerve N20 cortical response amplitude decreased 27.9% at 2.79 Hz, 48.8% at 5.69 Hz, and 53.8% at 8.44 Hz. The tibial nerve P37 cortical response amplitude decreased 30.3% at 2.79 Hz, 53.8% at 5.69 Hz, and 56.8% at 8.44 Hz. Neither upper or lower extremity peripheral or subcortical amplitudes nor upper and lower extremity subcortical or peripheral latencies were affected by increasing repetition rate in either group. Low SSEP stimulation repetition rates ensure the highest quality cortical responses.</p>","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"62 4","pages":"239-250"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10814164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"ASET Position Statement on the Best Practices in Remote Continuous EEG (cEEG) Monitoring.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2022.2145833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2022.2145833","url":null,"abstract":"The efficacy of continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring of critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and patients admitted to the epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) has been recognized by physicians, demonstrated by researchers, and described in the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS), International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE), and International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) guidelines (Claassen et al. 2013; Herman et al. 2015; Tatum et al. 2022). cEEG monitoring provides the ability to make real-time treatment decisions, improving patient safety and outcomes and reducing risk (Hill et al. 2019; Rosetti et al. 2020; Claassen et al. 2006; Friedman, Claassen, Hirsch 2009; Classen et al. 2013; Kubota et al. 2018). Qualified personnel must be available to recognize, document and communicate EEG changes and seizures in real time 24/7/ 365. Hospitals may be unable to provide continuous monitoring due to a lack of available onsite staffing, equipment, and other resources, so they often outsource cEEG monitoring services to a qualified and dependable remote service provider (RSP). Guidelines, policies, and procedures for on-site cEEG monitoring are currently available through the ACNS, ILAE, and IFCN (ACNS 2008; Tatum et al. 2022) and ASET (ASET 2011a, 2011b, 2016a), but there are unique aspects related to RSP services that require additional consideration. These unique challenges are addressed in this best practices position statement.","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"62 4","pages":"273-284"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9220460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Effects of Botulinum Toxin Injection on Reducing Myogenic Artifacts during Video-EEG Monitoring: A Longitudinal Study.","authors":"Babak Ghelichnia, Pargol Balali, Ghasem Farahmand, Mahdi Shafiee Sabet, Somaye Feizi, Bahareh Pourghaz, Melika Jameie, Abbas Tafakhori","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2022.2149996","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2022.2149996","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medically refractory seizures affect one-third of patients with epilepsy (PwE), for whom epilepsy surgery is considered. Video electroencephalography (vEEG) monitoring is a fundamental tool for pre-operative seizure localization. Facial and cranial myogenic artifacts can obscure vEEG findings, thus interfering with seizure localization. Studies have shown the beneficial effects of botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) injection into cranial muscles for reducing myogenic artifacts. This longitudinal study aimed to assess the effects of BTX-A injection on these artifacts. Twenty-two patients with medically refractory hypermotor seizures with daily seizure frequency and undetermined epilepsy localization were included in this study and underwent Dysport® injection (200 units) into the frontotemporal region. vEEG recordings were performed at baseline (one week before the injection), and at three days and six days post-injection. Before and after the injection, the amplitudes of myogenic artifacts were compared during various states (ictal, blinking, chewing, bruxism, head lateralization, scowling, talking, and yawning). BTX-A injection significantly reduced the amplitudes of EEG myogenic artifacts, except during blinking (day three) and talking (days three and six). On day six, significant reduction in EEG myogenic artifacts were noted during blinking, chewing, and bruxism for the greatest number of patients (95.5%, 90.9%, 81.8%), while significant reductions in EEG myogenic artifacts during talking, head lateralization, and ictal phase were associated with the least number of patients (22.7%, 36.3%, and 40.9%). Therefore, BTX-A injection could be a convenient method for filtering myogenic contamination, improving EEG interpretation, and facilitating seizure localization in patients with medically refractory seizures.</p>","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":"62 4","pages":"222-238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10832417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}