Neural event detection

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 10478096
  • Patent Number
    10,478,096
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, August 13, 2013
    11 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, November 19, 2019
    5 years ago
Abstract
A neural monitoring system for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to an electrical stimulus at a stimulation frequency includes a mechanical sensor and a processor in communication with the mechanical sensor. The mechanical sensor is configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle. The processor is configured to receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor and determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal that has a peak magnitude and to detect the occurrence of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response therefrom.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates generally to a surgical diagnostic system for detecting the presence of one or more nerves.


BACKGROUND

Traditional surgical practices emphasize the importance of recognizing or verifying the location of nerves to avoid injuring them. Advances in surgical techniques include development of techniques including ever smaller exposures, such as minimally invasive surgical procedures, and the insertion of ever more complex medical devices. With these advances in surgical techniques, there is a corresponding need for improvements in methods of detecting and/or avoiding nerves.


SUMMARY

A neural monitoring system is provided that is capable of detecting an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle to an electrical stimulus that is provided within an intracorporeal treatment area of a human subject. The electrical stimulus may be a periodic stimulus provided at a stimulation frequency, and having a predetermined pulse width. Additionally, the intracorporeal treatment area generally includes a nerve that innervates the monitored muscle.


The neural monitoring system includes a non-invasive mechanical sensor and a processor. The non-invasive mechanical sensor is configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle. By non-invasive, it is intended that the mechanical sensor does not require an incision or related surgical procedure to be properly positioned. Instead, it may be held in contact with an external surface of the skin, or may be positioned within a naturally occurring lumen/orifice. The mechanical sensor may generally include an accelerometer, a microphone, a strain gauge, or a piezoelectric device.


The processor is in communication with the mechanical sensor and is configured to receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor. In one configuration, the processor may determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal that has a peak magnitude relative to one or more adjacent frequencies. The processor may provide an indication to a user if the determined frequency component is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. In another configuration, the processor may determine a fundamental frequency of the mechanomyography output signal, and provide an indication to a user if the determined fundamental frequency is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency.


The above features and advantages and other features and advantages of the present invention are readily apparent from the following detailed description of the best modes for carrying out the invention when taken in connection with the accompanying drawings.


“A,” “an,” “the,” “at least one,” and “one or more” are used interchangeably to indicate that at least one of the item is present; a plurality of such items may be present unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All numerical values of parameters (e.g., of quantities or conditions) in this specification, including the appended claims, are to be understood as being modified in all instances by the term “about” whether or not “about” actually appears before the numerical value. “About” indicates that the stated numerical value allows some slight imprecision (with some approach to exactness in the value; about or reasonably close to the value; nearly). If the imprecision provided by “about” is not otherwise understood in the art with this ordinary meaning, then “about” as used herein indicates at least variations that may arise from ordinary methods of measuring and using such parameters. In addition, disclosure of ranges includes disclosure of all values and further divided ranges within the entire range. Each value within a range and the endpoints of a range are hereby all disclosed as separate embodiment.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a neural monitoring system for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response.



FIG. 2 is a schematic front view of the placement of a plurality of mechanical sensors on the legs of a subject.



FIG. 3 is a schematic side view of an intracorporeal treatment area including a portion of the lumbar spine.



FIG. 4 is a schematic time-domain graph of a mechnomyography output signal in response to a periodic electrical stimulus.



FIG. 5 is a schematic frequency-domain graph of a mechnomyography output signal in response to a periodic electrical stimulus.



FIG. 6 is a schematic flow diagram of a method for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to an electrical stimulus.



FIG. 7 is a schematic flow diagram of a method of inferring an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response from a free-running mechanomyography output signal.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Referring to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to identify like or identical components in the various views, FIG. 1 schematically illustrates a neural monitoring system 10 that may be used to identify the presence of one or more nerves within an intracorporeal treatment area 12 of a subject 14. As will be described in greater detail below, the system 10 may monitor one or more muscles of the subject 14 for a mechanical motion, and may be capable of discriminating an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle (also referred to as an “artificially-induced mechanical muscle response”) from a subject-intended muscle contraction/relaxation and/or an environmentally caused movement. If an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is detected during the procedure, the system 10 may provide an indication to a user.


As used herein, an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response refers to a contraction or relaxation of a muscle in response to a stimulus that is not received through natural sensory means (e.g., sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch). Instead, it is a contraction/relaxation of a muscle that is induced by the application of a stimulus directly to a nerve that innervates the muscle. Examples of stimuli that may cause an “artificially-induced” muscle response may include an electrical current applied directly to the nerve or to intracorporeal tissue or fluid immediately surrounding the nerve. In this example, if the applied electrical current is sufficiently strong and/or sufficiently close to the nerve, it may artificially cause the nerve to depolarize (resulting in a corresponding contraction of the muscle innervated by that nerve). Other examples of such “artificial stimuli” may involve mechanically-induced depolarization (e.g., physically stretching or compressing a nerve, such as with a tissue retractor), thermally-induced depolarization (e.g., through ultrasonic cautery), or chemically-induced depolarization (e.g., through the application of a chemical agent to the tissue surrounding the nerve).


During an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response, a muscle innervated by the artificially depolarized nerve may physically contract or relax (i.e., a mechanical response). Such a mechanical reaction may primarily occur along a longitudinal direction of the muscle (i.e., a direction aligned with the constituent fibers of the muscle), though may further result in a respective swelling/relaxing of the muscle in a lateral direction (which may be substantially normal to the skin for most skeletal muscles). This local movement of the muscle during an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response may be measured relative to the position of the muscle when in a non-stimulated state, and is distinguished from other global translations of the muscle


The neural monitoring system 10 may include a processor 20 that is in communication with at least one mechanical sensor 22. The mechanical sensor 22 may include, for example, a strain gauge, a force transducer, a position encoder, an accelerometer, a piezoelectric material, or any other transducer or combination of transducers that may convert a physical motion into a variable electrical signal.


Each mechanical sensor 22 may specially be configured to monitor a local mechanical movement of a muscle of the subject 14. For example, each sensor 22 may include a fastening means, such as an adhesive material/patch, that allows the sensor 22 to be adhered, bandaged, or otherwise affixed to the skin of the subject 14 (i.e. affixed on an external skin surface). Other examples of suitable fastening means may include bandages, sleeves, or other elastic fastening devices that may hold the sensor 22 in physical contact with the subject 14. Alternatively, the mechanical sensor 22 (and/or coupled device) may be configured to monitor a local mechanical movement of a muscle by virtue of its physical design. For example, the sensors/coupled devices may include catheters, balloons, bite guards, orifice plugs or endotracheal tubes that may be positioned within a lumen or natural opening of the subject to monitor a response of the lumen or orifice, or of a muscle that is directly adjacent to and/or connected with the lumen or orifice. In one configuration, the mechanical sensor may be a non-invasive device, whereby the term “non-invasive” is intended to mean that the sensor is not surgically placed within the body of the subject (i.e., via cutting of tissue to effectuate the placement). For the purposes of this disclosure, non-invasive sensors may include sensors that are placed within naturally occurring body lumens that are accessible without the need for an incision.


In one configuration, the sensor 22 may include a contact detection device, that may provide an indication if the sensor 22 is in physical contact with the skin of the subject 14. The contact detection device may, for example, include a pair of electrodes that are configured to contact the skin of the subject 14 when the sensor 22 is properly positioned. The sensor 22/contact detection device may then monitor an impedance between the electrodes to determine whether the electrodes are in contact with the skin. Other examples of suitable contact detection devices may include capacitive touch sensors or buttons that protrude slightly beyond the surface of the sensor.


The system 10 may further include one or more elongate medical instruments 30 that are capable of selectively providing a stimulus within the intracorporeal treatment area 12 of the subject 14 (i.e., also referred to as a stimulator 30). For example, in one configuration, the elongate medical instrument 30 may include a probe 32 (e.g., a ball-tip probe, k-wire, or needle) that has an electrode 34 disposed on a distal end portion 36. The electrode 34 may be selectively electrified, at either the request of a user/physician, or at the command of the processor 20, to provide an electrical stimulus 38 to intracorporeal tissue of the subject. In other configurations, the elongate medical instrument 30 may include a dialator, retractor, clip, cautery probe, pedicle screw, or any other medical instrument that may be used in an invasive medical procedure. Regardless of the instrument, if the intended artificial stimulus is an electrical current, the instrument 30 may include a selectively electrifiable electrode 34 disposed at a portion of the instrument that is intended to contact tissue within the intracorporeal treatment area 12 during a procedure.


During a surgical procedure, the user/surgeon may selectively administer the stimulus to intracorporeal tissue within the treatment area 12 to identify the presence of one or more nerve bundles or fibers. For an electrical stimulus 38, the user/surgeon may administer the stimulus, for example, upon depressing a button or foot pedal that is in communication with the system 10, and more specifically in communication with the stimulator 30. The electrical stimulus 38 may, for example, be a discrete pulse (e.g., a step pulse) having a pulse width within the range of about 30 μs to about 500 μs. In other examples, the discrete pulse may have a pulse width within the range of about 50 μs to about 200 μs, or within the range of about 75 μs to about 125 μs. The discrete pulse may be periodically applied at a frequency of, for example, between about 1 Hz and about 10 Hz.


If a nerve extends within a predetermined distance of the electrode 34, the electrical stimulus 38 may cause the nerve to depolarize, resulting in a mechanical twitch of a muscle that is innervated by the nerve (i.e., an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response). In general, the magnitude of the response/twitch may be directly correlated to the distance between the electrode and the nerve, and the magnitude of the stimulus current. In one configuration, a lookup table may be employed by the processor 20 to provide an approximate distance between the electrode and the nerve, given a known stimulus magnitude and a measured mechanical muscle response.


Prior to beginning a surgical procedure, the one or more mechanical sensors 22 may be placed in mechanical communication with one or more muscles of the subject 14. In the present context, a sensor 22 may be in mechanical communication with the muscle if it can physically detect a movement, velocity, acceleration, strain or other physical response of the muscle, either via direct contact with the muscle, or via a mechanical relationship through one or more intermediate materials and/or tissues (e.g., skin and/or subcutaneous tissue).



FIG. 2 illustrates an example of the placement of a plurality of mechanical sensors 22 for a surgical procedure that may occur proximate the L2, L3, and/or L4 vertebrae of the lumbar spine (shown schematically in FIG. 3). The nerves 50, 52 and 54 exiting the L2, L3 and L4 foramen 56, 58, 60 may therefore either lie within the treatment area 12 (i.e., the area surrounding the L2, L3, and/or L4 vertebrae), or may be immediately proximate to this area. Using common anatomical knowledge, the surgeon may understand that damage to these nerves 50, 52, 54 may affect the functioning of the vastus medialis muscles and the tibialis anterior muscles. As such, the surgeon may place mechanical sensors 22a-22d on or near the vastus medialis muscles and the tibialis anterior muscles to guard against inadvertent manipulation of the nerves during the procedure. For example, mechanical sensors 22a and 22b are placed on the vastus medialis muscles, which are innervated by the nerves 50, 52 exiting the L2 and L3 foramen 56, 58, and sensors 22c and 22d are placed on the tibialis anterior muscles, which are innervated by the nerves 54 exiting the L4 foramen 60.


In general, each mechanical sensor 22 may generate a mechanomyography (MMG) output signal (schematically shown at 62) that corresponds to a sensed mechanical movement/response of the adjacent muscle. The MMG output signal 62 may be either a digital or analog signal, and may typically be provided to the processor 20 through either wired or wireless communication means (e.g., through a physical wire, or using radio frequency communication protocols, such as according to IEEE 802.11 or another protocol such as Bluetooth). As a specific signal, the MMG output signal 62 is intended to be separate and distinct from any electrical potentials of the muscle or skin (often referred to as electromyography (EMG) signals). While electrical (EMG) and mechanical (MMG) muscle responses may be related, their relationship is complex, and not easily described (e.g., electrical potentials are very location specific, with a potentially variable electrical potential across the volume of the muscle of interest).


Referring again to FIG. 1, the processor 20 may be in communication with the stimulator 30 and the mechanical sensor 22, and may be configured to receive the MMG output signal 62 from the mechanical sensor 22. The processor 20 may be embodied as one or multiple digital computers, data processing devices, and/or digital signal processors (DSPs), which may have one or more microcontrollers or central processing units (CPUs), read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electrically-erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), a high-speed clock, analog-to-digital (A/D) circuitry, digital-to-analog (D/A) circuitry, input/output (I/O) circuitry, and/or signal conditioning and buffering electronics.


The processor 20 may be configured to automatically perform one or more signal processing algorithms 70 or methods to determine whether a sensed mechanical movement (i.e., via the MMG output signal 62) is representative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response or if it is merely a subject-intended muscle movement and/or an environmentally caused movement. These processing algorithms 70 may be embodied as software or firmware, and may either be stored locally on the processor 20, or may be readily assessable by the processor 20.



FIG. 4 generally illustrates a graph 80 of an MMG output signal 82 in response to a periodic electrical stimulus 38 provided proximate to a nerve. This MMG output signal 82 may be in response to an electrical stimulus 38 that is provided at about a 3 Hz frequency. As shown, the MMG output signal 82 has an amplitude 84 that varies as a function of time 86 and includes a plurality of generally discrete contraction events 88. Each contraction event 88 may include, for example, an initial response 90, and a plurality of subsequent peaks/valleys 92 that are smaller than the initial response 90.


While the muscle contractions may be easily represented in the time domain (as generally illustrated by the graph 80 in FIG. 4), they may also be represented in the frequency domain (as generally illustrated by the graph 94 in FIG. 5). In general, the frequency domain represents a signal as a plurality of discrete frequency components 96, each having a respective magnitude 98. It has been found that an induced muscle response has identifiable frequency content in the range of about 0 Hz to about 50 Hz, with a majority of the signal energy being in the range of about 0 Hz to about 20 Hz.



FIGS. 6 and 7 generally illustrate two methods 100, 200 for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response, both occurring in the frequency domain. In general, the method 100 provided in FIG. 6 may operate by correlating the MMG output signal 62 in the frequency domain to an applied electrical stimulus 38. Conversely, the method 200 provided in FIG. 7 may operate by solely monitoring the MMG output signal 62 in the frequency domain (i.e., a “free-run” MMG monitoring technique). The two provided methods 100, 200 may be used individually, or may be combined together to provide a more robust detection scheme.


The flow diagram of FIG. 6 generally illustrates a method 100 for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to an electrical stimulus 38 that is provided proximate to a nerve. As shown, the method 100 begins when the processor 20 receives the MMG output signal 62 from the mechanical sensor 22 (at step 102). The MMG output signal 62 may be received as a time domain signal, and may potentially be filtered (either by circuitry associated with the mechanical sensor 22 or processor 20, or through digital filtering techniques performed by the processor 20) to remove high frequency noise (such filtering is shown by example in FIG. 4 via the two data traces). For example, in one configuration, the MMG output signal 62 may be filtered using a low pass filter having a cutoff frequency greater than about 200 Hz. In other embodiments, a low pass filter may be used that has a cut off frequency greater than about 50 Hz, or greater than about 20 Hz, or in the range of about 20 Hz to about 50 Hz. In addition to filtering through a low pass filter, the MMG output signal 62 may be further filtered by a high pass filter. In one configuration, the high pass filter may have a cut off frequency that is greater than about 0 Hz though less than about 10 Hz.


After the processor 20 receives the MMG output signal 62 it may convert the received signal 62 from the time domain to the frequency domain (at step 104). Such a conversion may occur using, for example, Fourier Methods (e.g., a Fourier Transform, a Fast Fourier Transform, or a Discrete Fourier Transform), or through other similar methodologies. Once in the frequency domain, the processor 20 may then determine one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). While numerous methods may be used to detect magnitude peaks, the most basic method includes identifying one or more frequencies that have magnitudes greater than the magnitudes of adjacent frequencies. FIG. 5 generally illustrates at least 6 detectable peaks/peak magnitudes 150. As shown, these peaks 150 correspond to frequencies of about 3 Hz, about 6 Hz, about 9 Hz, about 12 Hz, about 15 Hz, and about 18 Hz.


Referring again to FIG. 6, once the MMG output signal 62 has been converted into the frequency domain (step 104) and a subset of frequencies that correspond to magnitude peaks have been identified (step 106), the processor 20 may determine whether an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response has been sensed by the mechanical sensor 22 (at step 108). If the processor 20 detects such an induced muscle response, then it may provide an indication to a user corresponding to the detected event (at step 110). In one configuration, this indication may include one or more of an illuminated light/LED, a colored light/LED, a textual or symbolic alert on a display device associated with the processor 20, a vibration in the handle of the stimulator, and an audible alert such as a single frequency alert, a multiple frequency alert, and/or an audible natural language alert. Moreover, the indication/alert may include an estimation of the proximity between the electrode and the nerve, such as may be derived using a lookup table as described above, or as explained in U.S. Pat. No. 8,343,065 to Bartol, et al., entitled “NEURAL EVENT DETECTION,” which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety and for all of the disclosure setforth therein.


Referring back to step 108, in general, there may be two strategies (112, 114) that the processor 20 may employ to determine whether a sensed movement of the mechanical sensor 22 is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. These strategies 112, 114 may both operate by attempting to correlate the detected frequency peaks of the MMG output signal with an attribute of the provided electrical stimulus 38. In practice, the processor 20 may use either of these strategies alone, or it may combine them both together into a single strategy (i.e., either performed concurrently, sequentially, or in combination).


In the first detection strategy 112, the processor 20 may receive an indication of the frequency at which the electrical stimulus 38 is administered (at 118). This frequency indication may either be received directly from the stimulator, or from a register or memory location within the processor itself. In step 120, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine whether any of the identified frequencies is an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. Finally, in step 122 the processor 20 may identify that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response if it is determined that one or more of the identified frequencies is an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency. In other configurations, this determination may require that two or more, or even three or more frequencies are integer multiples of the stimulation frequency before an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is identified.


In the second detection strategy 114, the processor 20 may similarly receive an indication of the frequency at which the electrical stimulus 38 is administered (at 118). In step 124, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine a fundamental frequency of the MMG output signal 62. This may be accomplished, for example, by determining a greatest common factor of a plurality of the frequencies where magnitude peaks are detected. This technique applied to the peaks 150 shown in FIG. 6 would result in a fundamental frequency of 3 Hz (i.e., a common factor of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18). In most cases, the determined fundamental frequency may lie within the range of about 1 Hz to about 10 Hz (i.e., the typical range of simulation frequencies). In step 126, the processor 20 may determine whether the fundamental frequency is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency, and if so, in step 122, the processor 20 may identify that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response.


The method 100 illustrated in FIG. 6 may generally provide a high-confidence indication that a nerve is proximate to the stimulator by correlating an applied stimulus with a monitored response. In some procedures, however, the use of a stimulator may either be impractical, or may not adequately assess the risks posed to nerves that are further away. For example, while stimulated detection may be extremely useful when making a lateral transpsoas approach to the spine, the subsequent use of a mechanical retractor to provide an operating corridor may affect nerves that are outside of the electrically-stimulated detection radius. In this manner it may also be useful to have a free-running detection algorithm that may monitor for artificially-induced mechanical muscle responses that are attributable to, for example, mechanical stimuli. One embodiment of a free-running detection algorithm is shown by the method 200 provided in FIG. 7. While this method 200 may only provide an “inference” of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response (i.e., due to the absence of a direct correlation), it may be equally valuable in some circumstances.


As shown in FIG. 7, the free-running detection method 200 may be similar to the method 100 of FIG. 6, though may make detection inferences without the knowledge of a stimulation frequency. As shown, the method 200 begins when the processor 20 receives the MMG output signal 62 from the mechanical sensor 22 (at step 102), and subsequently converts the MMG output signal 62 into the frequency domain (step 104). In step 202, the processor 20 may determine (i.e., infer) whether sensed motion detected by the mechanical sensor 22 is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. If the processor 20 does determine that such an induced muscle response has occurred, it may then provide an indication to a user of such an event (at step 110).


Referring back to step 202, in general, there may be three free-run detection strategies (204, 206, 208) that the processor 20 may employ to determine/infer whether a sensed movement of the mechanical sensor 22 is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. These free-run strategies 204, 206, 208 may operate by monitoring the MMG output signal, and attempting to detect signal attributes that may be indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response. In practice, the processor 20 may use any of these strategies alone, or it may combine two or more of them together into a single strategy (i.e., either performed concurrently, sequentially, or in combination, and/or may be combined with the stimulated techniques of FIG. 6).


In the first free-run detection strategy 204, the processor 20 may first determine one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). In step 124, the processor 20 may examine the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks from step 106, and determine a fundamental frequency of the MMG output signal 62. Finally, the processor 20 may compare the determined fundamental frequency to a range of expected fundamental frequencies for an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 210. Such a range may be, for example, between about 1 Hz and about 10 Hz. If the determined fundamental frequency falls within this range, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed mechanical sensor movement is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response (in step 212).


In the second free-run detection strategy 206, the processor 20 may begin by determining one or more frequency components that have a peak magnitude (at step 106). Once the peaks are identified, the processor 20 may compare the peaks to a range of frequencies where frequency content is expected to exist for an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response (in step 214). Such a range may be, for example between about 1 Hz and about 20 Hz. In one configuration, if one or more of the identified peaks are within this range, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 212. In other configurations, the processor 20 may require that two or more, or even three or more of the identified peaks lie within the range before it infers that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response.


Finally, in the third free-run detection strategy, 208 the processor 20 does not necessarily need to compute the frequencies corresponding to magnitude peaks, instead, it may first establish a noise floor at step 216, and then it may determine if any of the respective frequency magnitudes exceed the noise floor by a threshold amount (in step 218). If so, the processor 20 may infer that the sensed response is indicative of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response in step 212.


The noise floor may generally represent the normal background mechanical noise/movement that may be reported by the sensor. It may be a function of the precision of the transducer within the sensor, it may include received electromagnetic radiation, and/or it may include mechanical movement that may be attributable to continuous rhythmic events such as breathing or heart beat. The noise floor may either have a varying magnitude for each frequency, or may generally be a constant value across all frequencies. In this strategy 208, the threshold may be either a fixed amount above the noise floor, or may be a multiple of the noise floor (e.g., a level twice the noise floor, or a level that is set about one or more standard deviations above an average noise level across a period of time).


While the stimulation-based methods/strategies of FIG. 6, as well as the graphs in FIGS. 4 and 5 generally illustrate the present detection schemes using only a single simulation frequency, these methods/strategies may be expanded to the use of multiple stimulation frequencies as well. For example, if a stimulator were to provide an electrical stimulus having both a 3 Hz component and a 5 Hz component, an MMG output signal that is characteristic of an induced muscle response may include peaks at 3 hz, 5 hz, 6 hz, 9 hz, 10 hz, 12 hz, 15 hz within the frequency domain. Also, peaks may be apparent at multiples of the difference in the frequencies (i.e., 2 Hz, 4 Hz, 8 Hz, etc)


In addition to use as a stand alone, or hand-held nerve monitoring apparatus, the present nerve monitoring system 10 and described artificially-induced mechanical muscle response detection algorithms (as described within method 100) may be used by a robotic surgical system, such as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/428,693, filed 23 Mar. 2012, entitled “ROBOTIC SURGICAL SYSTEM WITH MECHANOMYOGRAPHY FEEDBACK,” which is incorporated by reference in its entirety and for all of the disclosure setforth therein. In such a system, the above-described neural monitoring system 10 may be used to provide one or more control signals to a robotic surgical system if an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is detected. In such an embodiment, the one or more elongate medical instruments 30 described above may be robotically controlled in up to 6 or more degrees of freedom/motion by a robotic controller. This instrument may be configured to perform a surgical procedure within an intracorporeal treatment area at the direction of the robotic controller, and may provide an electrical stimulus 38 in the manner described above. If an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response is detected, the neural monitoring system 10 may instruct the robotic controller (via the provided control signal) to limit the range of available motion of the elongate medical instrument 30 and/or to prevent an actuation of an end effector that may be disposed on the instrument 30 and controllable by the robotic controller.


While the best modes for carrying out the invention have been described in detail, those familiar with the art to which this invention relates will recognize various alternative designs and embodiments for practicing the invention within the scope of the appended claims. It is intended that all matter contained in the above description or shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted as illustrative only and not as limiting.

Claims
  • 1. A neural monitoring system for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle to an electrical stimulus provided within an intracorporeal treatment area of a human subject at a stimulation frequency, the intracorporeal treatment area including a nerve that innervates the muscle, the neural monitoring system comprising: a non-invasive mechanical sensor configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle; anda processor in communication with the mechanical sensor and configured to: receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor;determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal, wherein the frequency component has a peak magnitude relative to adjacent frequencies; andprovide an indication of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to a user if the determined frequency component is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency.
  • 2. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to attenuate frequency content of the mechanomyography output signal that is above a cutoff frequency.
  • 3. The neural monitoring system of claim 2, wherein the cutoff frequency is in the range of about 20 Hz to about 50 Hz.
  • 4. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal that has a peak magnitude by: converting the received mechanomyography output signal from a time domain to a frequency domain, wherein the frequency domain is characterized by a plurality of discrete frequencies, each having a corresponding magnitude; andidentifying the frequency component from the plurality of discrete frequencies that corresponds to a magnitude peak.
  • 5. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the frequency component is within the range of greater than 0 Hz to about 20 Hz.
  • 6. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the mechanical sensor includes an accelerometer, a microphone, a strain gauge, or a piezoelectric device.
  • 7. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the frequency component is a fundamental frequency of the mechanomyography output signal.
  • 8. The neural monitoring system of claim 1, further comprising an elongate medical instrument that is configured to selectively provide the electrical stimulus within the intracorporeal treatment area of the subject at the stimulation frequency.
  • 9. The neural monitoring system of claim 8, wherein the electrical stimulus includes a periodic pulse having a pulse width between about 30 μs and about 500 μs.
  • 10. A neural monitoring system for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle to an electrical stimulus provided within an intracorporeal treatment area of a human subject at a stimulation frequency, the intracorporeal treatment area including a nerve that innervates the muscle, the neural monitoring system comprising: a non-invasive mechanical sensor configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle; anda processor in communication with the mechanical sensor and configured to: receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor;determine a fundamental frequency of the mechanomyography output signal;provide an indication of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to a user if the determined fundamental frequency is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency.
  • 11. The neural monitoring system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to attenuate frequency content of the mechanomyography output signal that is above a cutoff frequency.
  • 12. The neural monitoring system of claim 11, wherein the cutoff frequency is in the range of about 20 Hz to about 50 Hz.
  • 13. The neural monitoring system of claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to determine a fundamental frequency of the mechanomyography output signal by: converting the received mechanomyography output signal from a time domain to a frequency domain, wherein the frequency domain is characterized by a plurality of discrete frequencies, each having a corresponding magnitude;identifying a subset of the plurality of discrete frequencies wherein each discrete frequency belonging to the subset corresponds to a respective magnitude peak; anddetermining a greatest common factor of the frequencies belonging to the subset.
  • 14. The neural monitoring system of claim 10, wherein the fundamental frequency is within the range of greater than 0 Hz to about 10 Hz.
  • 15. The neural monitoring system of claim 10, wherein the mechanical sensor includes an accelerometer, a microphone, a strain gauge, or a piezoelectric device.
  • 16. The neural monitoring system of claim 10, further comprising an elongate medical instrument that is configured to selectively provide the electrical stimulus within the intracorporeal treatment area of the subject at the stimulation frequency.
  • 17. The neural monitoring system of claim 16, wherein the electrical stimulus includes a periodic pulse having a pulse width between about 30 μs and about 500 μs.
  • 18. A neural monitoring system for detecting an artificially-induced mechanical response of a muscle to an electrical stimulus provided within an intracorporeal treatment area of a human subject at a stimulation frequency, the intracorporeal treatment area including a nerve that innervates the muscle, the neural monitoring system comprising: a non-invasive mechanical sensor configured to be placed in mechanical communication with the muscle and to generate a mechanomyography output signal corresponding to a sensed mechanical movement of the muscle; anda processor in communication with the mechanical sensor and configured to: receive the mechanomyography output signal from the mechanical sensor;determine a frequency component of the mechanomyography output signal, wherein the frequency component has a peak magnitude relative to adjacent frequencies; andprovide an indication of an artificially-induced mechanical muscle response to a user if the determined frequency component is either equal to, or an integer multiple of the stimulation frequency, and either: the determined frequency component is within the range of greater than 0 Hz to about 20 Hz; orthe peak magnitude is above an established noise floor by a threshold amount.
  • 19. The neural monitoring system of claim 18, wherein the mechanical sensor includes an accelerometer, a microphone, a strain gauge, or a piezoelectric device.
US Referenced Citations (309)
Number Name Date Kind
3200814 Taylor et al. Aug 1965 A
3565080 Ide et al. Feb 1971 A
3797010 Adler et al. Mar 1974 A
4155353 Rea et al. May 1979 A
4493327 Bergelson et al. Jan 1985 A
4807642 Brown Feb 1989 A
4817628 Zealear et al. Apr 1989 A
4940453 Cadwell Jul 1990 A
4994015 Cadwell Feb 1991 A
5047005 Cadwell Sep 1991 A
5078674 Cadwell Jan 1992 A
5116304 Cadwell May 1992 A
5178145 Rea Jan 1993 A
5284153 Raymond et al. Feb 1994 A
5284154 Raymond et al. Feb 1994 A
5482038 Ruff Jan 1996 A
5566678 Cadwell Oct 1996 A
5593429 Ruff Jan 1997 A
5631667 Cadwell May 1997 A
5775331 Raymond et al. Jul 1998 A
5860939 Wofford et al. Jan 1999 A
5888370 Becker et al. Mar 1999 A
5993630 Becker et al. Nov 1999 A
5993632 Becker et al. Nov 1999 A
6030401 Marino Feb 2000 A
6093205 McLeod et al. Jul 2000 A
6181961 Prass Jan 2001 B1
6183518 Ross et al. Feb 2001 B1
6206921 Guagliano et al. Mar 2001 B1
6221082 Marino et al. Apr 2001 B1
6224603 Marino May 2001 B1
6251140 Marino et al. Jun 2001 B1
6264659 Ross et al. Jul 2001 B1
6266394 Marino Jul 2001 B1
6266558 Gozani et al. Jul 2001 B1
6280447 Marino et al. Aug 2001 B1
6287832 Becker et al. Sep 2001 B1
6290724 Marino Sep 2001 B1
6312443 Stone Nov 2001 B1
6324432 Rigaux Nov 2001 B1
6361508 Johnson et al. Mar 2002 B1
6368325 McKinley et al. Apr 2002 B1
6387070 Marino et al. May 2002 B1
6387130 Stone et al. May 2002 B1
6436143 Ross et al. Aug 2002 B1
6466817 Kaula et al. Oct 2002 B1
6478805 Marino et al. Nov 2002 B1
6485518 Cornwall et al. Nov 2002 B1
6491626 Stone et al. Dec 2002 B1
6500128 Marino Dec 2002 B2
6519319 Marino et al. Feb 2003 B1
6530930 Marino et al. Mar 2003 B1
6533797 Stone et al. Mar 2003 B1
6540747 Marino Apr 2003 B1
6564078 Marino et al. May 2003 B1
6638281 Gorek Oct 2003 B2
6641708 Becker et al. Nov 2003 B1
6654634 Prass Nov 2003 B1
6739112 Marino May 2004 B1
6760616 Hoey et al. Jul 2004 B2
6764452 Gillespie et al. Jul 2004 B1
6764489 Ferree Jul 2004 B2
6802844 Ferree Oct 2004 B2
6805668 Cadwell Oct 2004 B1
6807438 Brun Del Re et al. Oct 2004 B1
6843790 Ferree Jan 2005 B2
6852126 Ahlgren Feb 2005 B2
6870109 Villarreal Mar 2005 B1
6887248 McKinley et al. May 2005 B2
6923814 Hildebrand et al. Aug 2005 B1
6945973 Bray Sep 2005 B2
6964674 Matsuura et al. Nov 2005 B1
6972199 Lebouitz et al. Dec 2005 B2
6981990 Keller Jan 2006 B2
7001432 Keller et al. Feb 2006 B2
7025769 Ferree Apr 2006 B1
7050848 Hoey et al. May 2006 B2
7072521 Cadwell Jul 2006 B1
7079883 Marino et al. Jul 2006 B2
7160303 Keller Jan 2007 B2
7162850 Marino et al. Jan 2007 B2
7166113 Arambula et al. Jan 2007 B2
7175662 Link et al. Feb 2007 B2
7177677 Kaula et al. Feb 2007 B2
7207949 Miles et al. Apr 2007 B2
7214197 Prass May 2007 B2
7214225 Ellis et al. May 2007 B2
7216001 Hacker et al. May 2007 B2
7230688 Villarreal Jun 2007 B1
7236832 Hemmerling et al. Jun 2007 B2
7267691 Keller et al. Sep 2007 B2
7296500 Martinelli Nov 2007 B1
7320689 Keller Jan 2008 B2
7338531 Ellis et al. Mar 2008 B2
7341590 Ferree Mar 2008 B2
7367958 McBean et al. May 2008 B2
7374448 Jepsen et al. May 2008 B1
7379767 Rea May 2008 B2
7470236 Kelleher et al. Dec 2008 B1
7485146 Crook et al. Feb 2009 B1
7522953 Kaula et al. Apr 2009 B2
7527629 Link et al. May 2009 B2
7527649 Blain May 2009 B1
7553307 Bleich et al. Jun 2009 B2
7555343 Bleich Jun 2009 B2
7569067 Keller Aug 2009 B2
7578819 Bleich et al. Aug 2009 B2
7582058 Miles et al. Sep 2009 B1
7583991 Rea Sep 2009 B2
7611522 Gorek Nov 2009 B2
7618423 Valentine et al. Nov 2009 B1
7628813 Link Dec 2009 B2
7634315 Cholette Dec 2009 B2
7657308 Miles et al. Feb 2010 B2
7664544 Miles et al. Feb 2010 B2
7666195 Kelleher et al. Feb 2010 B2
7668588 Kovacs Feb 2010 B2
7691057 Miles et al. Apr 2010 B2
7693562 Marino et al. Apr 2010 B2
7708776 Blain et al. May 2010 B1
7713463 Reah et al. May 2010 B1
7722613 Sutterlin et al. May 2010 B2
7722673 Keller May 2010 B2
7738968 Bleich Jun 2010 B2
7738969 Bleich Jun 2010 B2
7740631 Bleich et al. Jun 2010 B2
7766816 Chin et al. Aug 2010 B2
7776049 Curran et al. Aug 2010 B1
7776094 McKinley et al. Aug 2010 B2
7785248 Annest et al. Aug 2010 B2
7785253 Arambula et al. Aug 2010 B1
7815682 Peterson et al. Oct 2010 B1
7819801 Miles et al. Oct 2010 B2
7828855 Ellis et al. Nov 2010 B2
7833251 Ahlgren et al. Nov 2010 B1
7857813 Schmitz et al. Dec 2010 B2
7862592 Peterson et al. Jan 2011 B2
7862614 Keller et al. Jan 2011 B2
7867277 Tohmeh Jan 2011 B1
7883527 Matsuura et al. Feb 2011 B2
7887538 Bleich et al. Feb 2011 B2
7887568 Ahlgren Feb 2011 B2
7887595 Pimenta Feb 2011 B1
7892173 Miles et al. Feb 2011 B2
7901430 Matsuura et al. Mar 2011 B2
7905840 Pimenta et al. Mar 2011 B2
7905886 Curran et al. Mar 2011 B1
7914350 Bozich et al. Mar 2011 B1
7918849 Bleich et al. Apr 2011 B2
7918891 Curran et al. Apr 2011 B1
7920922 Gharib et al. Apr 2011 B2
7927337 Keller Apr 2011 B2
7935051 Miles et al. May 2011 B2
7938830 Saadat et al. May 2011 B2
7942104 Butcher et al. May 2011 B2
7942826 Scholl et al. May 2011 B1
7946236 Butcher May 2011 B2
7959577 Schmitz et al. Jun 2011 B2
7962191 Marino et al. Jun 2011 B2
7963915 Bleich Jun 2011 B2
7963927 Kelleher et al. Jun 2011 B2
7981058 Akay Jul 2011 B2
7981144 Geist et al. Jul 2011 B2
7991463 Kelleher et al. Aug 2011 B2
8000782 Gharib et al. Aug 2011 B2
8005535 Gharib et al. Aug 2011 B2
8012212 Link et al. Sep 2011 B2
8016767 Miles et al. Sep 2011 B2
8016776 Bourget et al. Sep 2011 B2
8027716 Gharib et al. Sep 2011 B2
8048080 Bleich et al. Nov 2011 B2
8050769 Gharib et al. Nov 2011 B2
8055349 Gharib Nov 2011 B2
8062298 Schmitz et al. Nov 2011 B2
8062300 Schmitz et al. Nov 2011 B2
8062369 Link Nov 2011 B2
8062370 Keller et al. Nov 2011 B2
8063770 Costantino Nov 2011 B2
8068912 Kaula et al. Nov 2011 B2
8070812 Keller Dec 2011 B2
8074591 Butcher et al. Dec 2011 B2
8075499 Nathan et al. Dec 2011 B2
8075601 Young Dec 2011 B2
8083685 Fagin et al. Dec 2011 B2
8083796 Raiszadeh et al. Dec 2011 B1
8088163 Kleiner Jan 2012 B1
8088164 Keller Jan 2012 B2
8090436 Hoey et al. Jan 2012 B2
8092455 Neubardt et al. Jan 2012 B2
8092456 Bleich et al. Jan 2012 B2
8103339 Rea Jan 2012 B2
8114019 Miles et al. Feb 2012 B2
8114162 Bradley Feb 2012 B1
8123668 Annest et al. Feb 2012 B2
8133173 Miles et al. Mar 2012 B2
8137284 Miles et al. Mar 2012 B2
8147421 Farquhar et al. Apr 2012 B2
8147551 Link et al. Apr 2012 B2
8165653 Marino et al. Apr 2012 B2
8167915 Ferree et al. May 2012 B2
8172750 Miles et al. May 2012 B2
8206312 Farquhar Jun 2012 B2
8255044 Miles et al. Aug 2012 B2
8255045 Gharib et al. Aug 2012 B2
8303515 Miles et al. Nov 2012 B2
8337410 Kelleher et al. Dec 2012 B2
8343065 Bartol et al. Jan 2013 B2
8343079 Bartol et al. Jan 2013 B2
8394129 Morgenstern Lopez et al. Mar 2013 B2
8500653 Farquhar Aug 2013 B2
8500738 Wolf, II Aug 2013 B2
8517954 Batrol et al. Aug 2013 B2
8535224 Cusimano Reaston et al. Sep 2013 B2
8538539 Gharib et al. Sep 2013 B2
8556808 Miles et al. Oct 2013 B2
8562539 Marino Oct 2013 B2
8562660 Peyman Oct 2013 B2
8568317 Gharib et al. Oct 2013 B1
8591431 Calancie et al. Nov 2013 B2
8641638 Kelleher et al. Feb 2014 B2
8731654 Johnson et al. May 2014 B2
8784330 Scholl et al. Jul 2014 B1
8792977 Kakei et al. Jul 2014 B2
8864654 Kleiner et al. Oct 2014 B2
8936626 Tohmeh et al. Jan 2015 B1
8945004 Miles et al. Feb 2015 B2
8958869 Kelleher et al. Feb 2015 B2
8989855 Murphy et al. Mar 2015 B2
8989866 Gharib et al. Mar 2015 B2
9014776 Marino et al. Apr 2015 B2
9014797 Shiffman et al. Apr 2015 B2
9037250 Kaula et al. May 2015 B2
9066701 Finley et al. Jun 2015 B1
9084551 Brunnett et al. Jul 2015 B2
9131947 Ferree Sep 2015 B2
9192415 Arnold et al. Nov 2015 B1
9295396 Gharib et al. Mar 2016 B2
9295401 Cadwell Mar 2016 B2
9301711 Bartol et al. Apr 2016 B2
9392953 Gharib Jul 2016 B1
9446259 Phillips et al. Sep 2016 B2
20010031916 Bennett et al. Oct 2001 A1
20020038092 Stanaland et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020165590 Crowe et al. Nov 2002 A1
20030074037 Moore et al. Apr 2003 A1
20040077969 Onda et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040186535 Knowlton Sep 2004 A1
20040230138 Inoue et al. Nov 2004 A1
20040243018 Organ et al. Dec 2004 A1
20050075578 Gharib et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050085741 Hoskonen et al. Apr 2005 A1
20050102007 Ayal et al. May 2005 A1
20050240086 Akay Oct 2005 A1
20050245839 Stivoric et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050280531 Fadem et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050283204 Buhlmann Dec 2005 A1
20060020177 Seo et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060052726 Weisz et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060135888 Mimnagh-Kelleher et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060270949 Mathie et al. Nov 2006 A1
20070038155 Kelly, Jr. et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070232958 Donofrio et al. Oct 2007 A1
20070265675 Lund et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070276270 Tran Nov 2007 A1
20080051643 Park et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080058656 Costello et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080167695 Tehrani et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080234767 Salmon et al. Sep 2008 A1
20080287761 Hayter et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080306363 Chaiken et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080306397 Bonmassar et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080312560 Jamsen et al. Dec 2008 A1
20080312709 Volpe et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090036747 Hayter et al. Feb 2009 A1
20090062696 Nathan et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090069709 Schmitz et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090069722 Flaction et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090076336 Mazar et al. Mar 2009 A1
20090171381 Schmitz et al. Jun 2009 A1
20090192416 Ernst et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090228068 Buhlmann et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090247910 Klapper Oct 2009 A1
20090306741 Hogle et al. Dec 2009 A1
20090318779 Tran Dec 2009 A1
20100137748 Sone et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100152619 Kalpaxis et al. Jun 2010 A1
20100152622 Teulings Jun 2010 A1
20100152623 Williams Jun 2010 A1
20100168559 Tegg et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100292617 Lei et al. Nov 2010 A1
20110004207 Wallace et al. Jan 2011 A1
20110237974 Bartol Sep 2011 A1
20110270121 Johnson et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120053491 Nathan et al. Mar 2012 A1
20130213659 Bartol et al. May 2013 A1
20130197321 Wilson Aug 2013 A1
20130204097 Rondoni et al. Aug 2013 A1
20130253533 Bartol et al. Sep 2013 A1
20140020178 Stashuk et al. Jan 2014 A1
20140163411 Rea Jun 2014 A1
20140275926 Scott et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140276195 Papay et al. Sep 2014 A1
20140358026 Mashiach et al. Dec 2014 A1
20150045783 Edidin Feb 2015 A1
20150112325 Whitman Apr 2015 A1
20150230749 Gharib et al. Aug 2015 A1
20150342521 Narita et al. Dec 2015 A1
20150342621 Jackson, III Dec 2015 A1
20160051812 Montgomery, Jr. et al. Feb 2016 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (10)
Number Date Country
1417000 May 2004 EP
1575010 Sep 2005 EP
2231003 Sep 2010 EP
2535082 Dec 2012 EP
2920087 Feb 2009 FR
0078209 Dec 2000 WO
2007024147 Mar 2007 WO
WO2014160832 Oct 2014 WO
WO2015171619 Nov 2015 WO
WO2016100340 Jun 2016 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (29)
Entry
Beck et al., Mechanomyographic amplitude and frequency responses during dynamic muscle actions: a comprehensive review, Dec. 2005, BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2005, 4:67 doi:10.1186/1475-925X-4-67.
Bartol, Stephen MD, and Laschuk, Maria MD, “Arthroscopic Microscopic Discectomy in Awake Patients: The Effectiveness of Local/Neurolept Anaesthetic”, Canadian Spine Society Meeting, Vernon, BC, Canada, Mar. 2002.
Bartol, Stephen MD, and Laschuk, Maria MD, “Use of Nerve Stimulator to Localize the Spinal Nerve Root During Arthroscopic Discectomy Procedures”, Canadian Spine Society Meeting, Vernon, BC, Canada, Mar. 2002.
Begg et al. “Computational Intelligence for Movement Sciences: Neural Networks and Other Emerging Techniques” 2006.
Bourke et al. “A Threshold-Based Fall-Detection Algorithm Using a Bi-Axial Gyroscope Sensor” Medical Engineering and Physics 30 (2008) 84-90.
Fee JR., James W.; Miller, Freeman; Lennon, Nancy; “EMG Reaction in Muscles About the Knee to Passive Velocity, Acceleration, and Jerk Manipulations”; Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Gait Laboratory, 1600 Rockland Road, Wilmington, DE 19899, United States Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 19 (2009) 467-475.
Koceja, D.M., Bernacki, R.H. and Kamen, G., “Methodology for the Quantitative Assessment of Human Crossed-Spinal Reflex Pathways,” Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, Nov. 1991, pp. 603-606, No. 6, US.
Tarata, M.; Spaepen, A.; Puers, R.; “The Accelerometer MMG Measurement Approach, in Monitoring the Muscular Fatigue”; Measurement Science Review; 2001; vol. 1, No. 1.
Murphy, Chris; Campbell, Niall; Caulfield, Brian; Ward, Tomas and Deegan, Catherine; “Micro Electro Mechanical Systems Based Sensor for Mechanomyography”, 19th international conference BIOSIGNAL 2008, Brno, Czech Republic.
Nijsen, Tamara M.E.; Aarts, Ronald M.; Arends, Johan B.A.M.; Cluitmans, Pierre J.M.; “Model for Arm Movements During Myoclonic Seizures”; Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS Cite Internationale, Lyon, France Aug. 23-26, 2007.
Ohta, Yoichi; Shima, Norihiro; Yabe, Kyonosuke; “Superimposed Mechanomyographic Response at Different Contraction Intensity in Medial Gastrocnemius and Soleus Muscles”; International Journal of Sport and Health Science, vol. 5, 63-70, 2007.
J. Herdmann MD; V. Deletis MD PhD; H.Edmonds PhD; N. Morota MD, Spinal Cord and Nerve Root Monitoring in Spine Surgery and Related Procedures, Spine Journal, Apr. 1, 1996, pp. 879-885, vol. 21.
N. Hollands MB, BS; J. Kostuik. Continuous Electromyographic Moniotring to Detect Nerve Root Injury During Thoracolumbar Scoliosis Surgery, Spine Journal, Nov. 1, 1997, pp. 2547-2550, vol. 22, Issue 21.
C. Harper, J. Daube, Facial Nerve Electromyography and Other Cranial Nerve Monitoring, Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, May 1998, pp. 206-216, vol. 15, Issue 3.
D. Beck, J. Ben Ecke Jr, Intraoperative Facial Nerve Monitoring Technical Aspects, Official Journal of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, Apr. 27, 1989.
W. Welch MD, R. Rose PhD, J. Balzer PhD, G. Jacobs, MD, Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study, Journal of Neurosurgery, Sep. 1997, pp. 397-402, vol. 87, No. 3.
W. Young MD, D. Morledge PhD, W. Martin PhD, K. Park MD, Intraoperative Stimulation of Pedicle Screws: A New Method for Verification of Screw Placement, Journal of Neurosurgery, 1995, pp. 544-547 vol. 44.
K. Sugita MD, S. Kobayashi MD, Technical and instrumental improvements in the surgical treatment of acoustic neurinomas, Journal of Neurosurgery, Dec. 1982, pp. 747-752, vol. 57.
J. Boston, L. Deneault, Sensory evoked potentials: a system for clinical testing and patient monitoring, International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 1984, pp. 13-19, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands.
A. Moller, Neuromonitoring in Operations in the Skull Base, The Keio Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1991, pp. 151-159.
J. Maurer, H. Pelster, W. Mann, Intraoperatives Monitoring motorischer Hurnnerven bei Operationen an Hals und Schadelbasis, Laryngo-Rhino-Otol, pp. 561-567, vol. 73.
W. Friedman MD, M. Curran R. EPT, Somatosensory Evoked Potentials after Sequential Extremity Stimulation: A New Method for Improved Monitoring Accuracy, Neurosurgery, 1987, pp. 755-758, vol. 21, No. 5.
R. Gopalan, P. Parker, R. Scott, Microprocessor-Based System for Monitoring Spinal Evoked Potentials During Surgery, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Oct. 1986, pp. 982-985, vol. BME-22, No. 10.
Moed MD, B. Ahmad MD, J. Craig MD, G. Jacobson PhD, M. Anders MD, Intraoperative Monitoring with Stimulus-Evoked Electromyography during Placement Iliosacral Screws, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Apr. 1998, pp. 537-546, vol. 80-A, No. 4, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
C. Yingling PhD, J. Gardi PhD, Intraoperative Monitoring of Facial and Cochlear Nerves During Acoustic Neuroma Surgery, Acoustic Neuroma I, Apr. 1992, pp. 413-448, vol. 25, No. 2, Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America.
N. Holland MB, BS, J. Kostuik MD, Continuous Electromyographic Monitoring to Detect Nerve Root Injury During Thoracolumbar Scoliosis Surgery, Spine, 1997, pp. 2547-2550, vol. 22, No. 21, Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
P. Dulguerov, F. Marchal, W. Lehmann, Postparotidectomy Facial Nerve Paralysis: Possible Etiologic Factors and Results with Routine Facial Nerve Monitoring, The Laryngoscope, May 1999, pp. 754-762 vol. 109, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
M. Imai MS, Y. Harada MD, Y. Atsuta MD, Y. Takemitsu MD, T. Iwahara MD, Automated Spinal Cord Monitoring for Spinal Surgery, Paraplegia, 1989, pp. 204-211.
R. Witt, Facial nerve monitoring in parotid surgery: The standard of care?, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Nov. 1998, pp. 468-470, vol. 119, No. 5.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20150051506 A1 Feb 2015 US