Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2003 Jan;74(1):82–87. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.74.1.82

Application of time–frequency analysis to somatosensory evoked potential for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring

Y Hu 1, K Luk 1, W Lu 1, J Leong 1
PMCID: PMC1738163  PMID: 12486272

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the improvement in the reliability of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring by applying time–frequency analysis to somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP).

Methods: 34 patients undergoing scoliosis surgery were studied. SEP were recorded during different stages of scoliosis surgery. Averaged SEP signals were analysed intraoperatively by short time Fourier transform (STFT). The time–frequency characteristics of SEP were observed during surgery. The main peak in the time–frequency interpretation of SEP was measured in peak time, peak frequency, and peak power. The changes in these variables were compared with the changes in latency and amplitude during different surgical stages.

Results: During different surgical stages, changes in peak times and peak powers were found to correlate with the changes in latency and amplitude, respectively. Peak time showed more variability than latency (p < 0.01), while peak power showed less variability than amplitude (p < 0.01). The peak frequency of SEP appeared to be unchanged during surgery. SEP signals were found to have specific time–frequency characteristics, with the time–frequency distribution of the signals being located in a particular time–frequency space.

Conclusions: Time–frequency analysis of SEP waveforms reveals stable and easily identifiable characteristics. Peak power is recommended as a more reliable monitoring parameter than amplitude, while peak time monitoring was not superior to latency measurement. Applying time–frequency analysis to SEP can improve the reliability of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (219.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brauna J. C., Hanley D. F., Thakor N. V. Detection of neurological injury using time-frequency analysis of the somatosensory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Jul;100(4):310–318. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(96)95115-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Eisen A., Roberts K., Low M., Hoirch M., Lawrence P. Questions regarding the sequential neural generator theory of the somatosensory evoked potential raised by digital filtering. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1984 Sep;59(5):388–395. doi: 10.1016/0168-5597(84)90040-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Geva A. B., Pratt H., Zeevi Y. Y. Multichannel wavelet-type decomposition of evoked potentials: model-based recognition of generator activity. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1997 Jan;35(1):40–46. doi: 10.1007/BF02510390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hu Y., Luk K. D., Lu W. W., Holmes A., Leong J. C. Prevention of spinal cord injury with time-frequency analysis of evoked potentials: an experimental study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Dec;71(6):732–740. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.6.732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hu Yong, Luk Keith Dipkei, Lu William Weijia, Leong John Chiyan. Comparison of time-frequency analysis techniques in intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring. Comput Biol Med. 2002 Jan;32(1):13–23. doi: 10.1016/s0010-4825(01)00026-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Imai M., Harada Y., Atsuta Y., Takemitsu Y., Iwahara T. Automated spinal cord monitoring for spinal surgery. Paraplegia. 1989 Jun;27(3):204–211. doi: 10.1038/sc.1989.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kostyunina M. B., Kulikov M. A. Frequency characteristics of EEG spectra in the emotions. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 1996 Jul-Aug;26(4):340–343. doi: 10.1007/BF02359037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Luk K. D., Hu Y., Wong Y. W., Leong J. C. Variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials in different stages of scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999 Sep 1;24(17):1799–1804. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199909010-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Noss R. S., Boles C. D., Yingling C. D. Steady-state analysis of somatosensory evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Sep;100(5):453–461. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Nuwer M. R., Dawson E. C. Intraoperative evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord. A restricted filter, scalp method during Harrington instrumentation for scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 Mar;(183):42–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nuwer M. R., Dawson E. G., Carlson L. G., Kanim L. E., Sherman J. E. Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1995 Jan;96(1):6–11. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(94)00235-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nuwer M. R. Spinal cord monitoring with somatosensory techniques. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 May;15(3):183–193. doi: 10.1097/00004691-199805000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rossini P. M., Cracco R. Q., Cracco J. B., House W. J. Short latency somatosensory evoked potentials to peroneal nerve stimulation: scalp topography and the effect of different frequency filters. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1981 Dec;52(6):540–552. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(81)91429-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ryan T. P., Britt R. H. Spinal and cortical somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during corrective spinal surgery with 108 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1986 May;11(4):352–361. doi: 10.1097/00007632-198605000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shinomiya K., Okamoto A., Komori H., Matsuoka T., Yoshida H., Muto N., Furuya K. Prognosticating study for cervical myelopathy using evoked spinal cord potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990 Oct;15(10):1053–1057. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199015100-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Szalay E. A., Carollo J. J., Roach J. W. Sensitivity of spinal cord monitoring to intraoperative events. J Pediatr Orthop. 1986 Jul-Aug;6(4):437–441. doi: 10.1097/01241398-198607000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Thakor N. V. Adaptive filtering of evoked potentials. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1987 Jan;34(1):6–12. doi: 10.1109/tbme.1987.326024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Thakor N. V., Guo X. R., Vaz C. A., Laguna P., Jane R., Caminal P., Rix H., Hanley D. F. Orthonormal (Fourier and Walsh) models of time-varying evoked potentials in neurological injury. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1993 Mar;40(3):213–221. doi: 10.1109/10.216404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. de Weerd J. P., Kap J. I. Spectro-temporal representations and time-varying spectra of evoked potentials. A methodological investigation. Biol Cybern. 1981;41(2):101–117. doi: 10.1007/BF00335365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES