OBJECTIVES: We have previously reported that transesophageal motor evoked potential is feasible and more stable than transcranial motor evoked potential. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of transesophageal motor evoked potential to monitor @entity2759 . METHODS: Transesophageal and transcranial motor evoked potentials were recorded in 13 anesthetized @entity235 at the bilateral forelimbs, anal sphincters, and hindlimbs. @entity2759 was induced by @entity432 at the 8th to 10th thoracic vertebra level. In the 12 animals with motor evoked potential disappearance, occlusion was maintained for 10  minutes (n  =  6) or 40  minutes (n  =  6) after motor evoked potential disappearance. Neurologic function was evaluated by Tarlov score at 24 and 48  hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Time to disappearance of bilateral motor evoked potentials was quicker in transesophageal motor evoked potentials than in transcranial motor evoked potentials at anal sphincters (6.9      3.1  minutes vs 8.3      3.4  minutes, P  =  .02) and hindlimbs (5.7      1.9  minutes vs 7.1      2.7  minutes, P  =  .008). Hindlimb function was normal in all @entity235 in the 10-minute occlusion group, and motor evoked potentials recovery (>75% on both sides) after reperfusion was quicker in transesophageal motor evoked potentials than transcranial motor evoked potentials at hindlimbs (14.8      5.6  minutes vs 24.7      8.2  minutes, P  =  .001). At anal sphincters, transesophageal motor evoked potentials always reappeared (>25%), but transcranial motor evoked potentials did not in 3 of 6 @entity235 . In the 40-minute occlusion group, hindlimb motor evoked potentials did not reappear in 4 @entity235 with @entity451 . Among the 2 remaining @entity235 , 1 with paraparesis (Tarlov 3) showed delayed recovery (>75%) of hindlimb motor evoked potentials without reappearance of anal sphincter motor evoked potentials. In another @entity235 with @entity451 , transesophageal motor evoked potentials from the hindlimbs remained less than 20%, whereas transcranial motor evoked potentials showed recovery (>75%). CONCLUSIONS: Transesophageal motor evoked potentials may be superior to transcranial motor evoked potentials in terms of quicker response to @entity2759 and better prognostic value.

Transesophageal versus transcranial motor evoked potentials to monitor XXXX .

@entity235 :: ('9615', 'Species') :: ['dogs', 'dog'] @entity451 :: ('MESH:C536857', 'Disease') :: ['spastic paraplegia', 'paraplegia'] @entity2759 :: ('MESH:D020760', 'Disease') :: ['Spinal cord ischemia', 'spinal cord ischemia'] @entity432 :: ('MESH:D001157', 'Disease') :: ['aortic balloon occlusion']
@entity2759 :: (MESH:D020760,Disease) :: ['spinal cord ischemia']
