LAUSR

1. Sutedja NA, Hollands AWH, Jacobs MJ. MEP monitoring during aortic surgery: what we truly know. J Anesth. 2017;. doi:10.1007/ s00540-017-2367-6. 2. Tanaka Y, Kawaguchi M, Noguchi Y, Yoshitani K, Kawamata M, Masui K, Nakayama T, Yamada Y. Systematic review of motor evoked potentials monitoring during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm open repair surgery: a diagnostic metaanalysis. J Anesth. 2016;30:1037–50. 3. Jacobs MJ, Mess W, Mochtar B, Nijenhuis RJ, Statius van Eps RG, Schurink GW. The value of motor-evoked potentials in reducing paraplegia during thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43:239–46. To the Editor: We thank Studia and colleagues [1] for their comments on our manuscript [2]. Our group regularly double-check data obtained from independent researchers, and we hold paramount the accuracy of information that we present. Because of this, we deeply regret our inadvertent inclusion of poorly vetted data from the Jacobs 2006 study [3]. The issue centers around the debate about whether or not it is appropriate to consider a transient decline in motor evoked potential (MEP) as a true positive. Our critics maintain that only declines in MEP at surgical termination should be regarded as true-positive MEPs. Consequently, we reconsider our original analyses in light of our amended definition, i.e., MEP is to be regarded as ‘true positive’ only if it declines at the end of surgery. As a consequence of this recalculation, our MEP data have changed (ESM Table 1). However, our recalculations did not change our original conclusion. An ‘all-or-none’ MEP cut-off point may be best for detecting postoperative paraplegia following TAA/TAAA open repair surgery. To circumvent these issues in the future, we recommend that scientists and researchers with expertise in MEP