Intraoperative Visual Evoked Potential Monitoring in Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Nonpituitary Adenoma Suprasellar Tumors
10.3988/jcn.2025.0207
- Author:
Young Nam KWON
;
Hwa Reung LEE
;
Myung Jae LEE
;
Young Ung KIM
;
Seung Woo KIM
;
Ha Young SHIN
;
Sung-Min KIM
;
Ju Hyung MOON
;
Jong Hee CHANG
;
Eui Hyun KIM
- Publication Type:ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- From:Journal of Clinical Neurology
2026;22(2):221-228
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:and Purpose Intraoperative visual evoked potential (VEP) monitoring has been studied mainly in pituitary adenoma, while its role in nonpituitary suprasellar tumors has remained unclear. This study evaluated the predictive usefulness of intraoperative VEP monitoring during endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) and aimed to identify optimal alarm criteria for visual outcomes.
Methods:We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 87 patients who underwent EES with intraoperative VEP monitoring between April 2021 and September 2023. Visual outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and at short-term (≤3 months) and long-term (12 months) followups, with visual deterioration at these time points defined as worsening of either visual acuity or the visual field. Reductions in the VEP amplitude were quantified using both the maximum intraoperative decrease and the final amplitude after recovery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to identify the optimal alarm thresholds, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations.
Results:Short-term and long-term visual deteriorations were detected in 12 (9.2%) and 5 (3.8%) of the 130 analyzed eyes, respectively. ROC curve analyses identified ≥40% and ≥30% reductions in the N75–P100 amplitude as optimal alarm criteria for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations, respectively. A 30% reduction without intraoperative recovery demonstrated markedly higher sensitivity than the conventional 50% alarm threshold for short-term (58.3% vs. 33.3%) and long-term (80.0% vs. 20.0%) outcomes, while maintaining acceptable specificity (82.2% and 80.8%, respectively).
Conclusions:A 30% reduction in amplitude represents a more-sensitive and clinically relevant alarm threshold than a 50% reduction for intraoperative VEP monitoring during EES for nonpituitary suprasellar tumors. Incorporating both the magnitude and recovery pattern of VEP amplitude changes may improve the accuracy of predictions of long-term visual deterioration. However, the potential for false positives warrants cautious interpretation, and further studies are needed to validate the impact of intraoperative VEP monitoring on visual outcomes.
