Why Should Anesthesiologists Be More Involved

With Neurophysiologic Monitoring?

Antoun Koht, M.D.

Anesthesiologists should re-evaluate and re-ignite their interest in neurophysiologic monitoring.

Their active involvement could lead to improved neuromonitoring today and allow

for possible supervision in the future.

Currently, neurophysiologic monitoring is conducted by trained technologists capable of

operating the neuromonitoring machine, connecting wires, obtaining reproducible signals,

and identifying signal changes; and they should be able to troubleshoot technical issues contributing to signal changes. However, diagnosis of the etiology of signal changes may be difficult

and outside the realm of their expertise. In order to elucidate signal change etiology, it is necessary to examine all potential causative factors, including rapidly checking monitoring circuit integrity, evaluating patient position, optimizing physiologic status, eliminating pharmacologic contributions, and correlating surgical maneuvers with signal changes.

IONM the Gold Standard of Patient Safety? By David J.Anschel, M.D

David J. Anschel, M.D.
Contributing Editor of MedCompare,

David J. Anschel writes about the developments in "Itraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring and its medical usage:

IONM has become the gold standard for ensuring patient safety while undergoing operations which place the central or peripheral nervous system at risk. Technological advancements within the last few years have allowed monitoring techniques to evolve. The above robust systems are representative of the best that modern medicine has to offer. Allowing neurologists and surgeons to work together to provide better patient outcomes during more complicated procedures in close proximity to vital neurological tissues.