Intraoperative control by somatosensory evoked potentials in the treatment of cervical myeloradiculopathy. Results in 210 cases

Combined Motor and Sensory Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy Surgery Causes Confusion: A Level-1 Diagnostic Study

STUDY DESIGN

Level-1 diagnostic study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of combined motor and sensory intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Intraoperative neuromonitoring during spine surgery began with sensory modalities with the goal of reducing neurological complications. Motor monitoring was later added and purported to further increase sensitivity and specificity when used in concert with sensory monitoring. Debate continues, however, as to whether neuromonitoring reliably detects reversible neurologic changes during surgery or simply adds set-up time, cost, or mere medicolegal reassurance.

METHODS

Neuromonitoring data using combined motor and sensory evoked potentials for 540 patients with CSM undergoing anterior or posterior decompressive surgery were collected prospectively. Patients were examined postoperatively to determine the clinical occurrence of new neurologic deficit which correlated with monitoring alerts recorded per established standard criteria.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of positive IONM alerts was 1.3% (N = 7) all of which were motor alerts. All were false positives as no patient had clinical neurological deterioration post-operatively. The false-positive rate was 1.4% (N = 146) for anterior surgeries and 1.3% (N = 394) for posteriors with no statistical difference between them (P = 1.0, Fisher exact test). There were no false-negative alerts, and all negatives were true negatives (N = 533). The overall sensitivity of detecting a new neurologic deficit was 0%, overall specificity 98.7%.

CONCLUSION

Combined motor and sensory neuromonitoring for CSM patients created a confusing choice between the motor or sensory data when in disagreement in 1.3% of surgical patients. Criterion standard clinical examinations confirmed all motor alerts were false positives. Surgical plan was negatively altered by following false motor alerts early on, but disregarded in later cases in favor of sensory data. Neuromonitoring added set-up time and cost, but without clear benefit in this series.Level of Evidence: 4.

What is the predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for postoperative neurological deficit in cervical spine surgery?-a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cervical decompression and fusion surgery remains a mainstay of treatment for a variety of cervical pathologies. Potential intraoperative injury to the spinal cord and nerve roots poses nontrivial risk for consequent postoperative neurologic deficits. Although neuromonitoring with intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) is often used in cervical spine surgery, its therapeutic value remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether significant SSEP changes can predict postoperative neurologic complications in cervical spine surgery. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the predictive power of SSEP changes in both anterior and posterior approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

The present study was a meta-analysis of the literature from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase to identify prospective/retrospective studies with outcomes of patients who underwent cervical spine surgeries with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The total cohort consisted of 7,747 patients who underwent cervical spine surgery with intraoperative SSEP monitoring.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for study selection were as follows: (1) prospective or retrospective cohort studies, (2) studies conducted in patients undergoing elective cervical spine surgery not due to aneurysm, tumor, or trauma with intraoperative SSEP monitoring, (3) studies that reported postoperative neurologic outcomes, (4) studies conducted with a sample size ≥20 patients, (5) studies with only adult patients ≥18 years of age, (6) studies published in English, (7) studies inclusive of an abstract.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and likelihood ratios of overall SSEP changes, reversible SSEP changes, irreversible SSEP changes, and SSEP loss for predicting postoperative neurological deficit were calculated.

RESULTS

The total rate of postoperative neurological deficits was 2.50% (194/7,747) and the total rate of SSEP changes was 7.36% (570/7,747). The incidence of postoperative neurological deficit in patients with intraoperative SSEP changes was 16.49% (94/570) while only 1.39% (100/7,177) in patients without. All significant intraoperative SSEP changes had a sensitivity of 46.0% and specificity of 96.7% with a DOR of 27.32. Reversible and irreversible SSEP changes had sensitivities of 17.7% and 37.1% and specificities of 97.5% and 99.5%, respectively. The DORs for reversible and irreversible SSEP changes were 9.01 and 167.90, respectively. SSEP loss had a DOR of 51.39, sensitivity of 17.3% and specificity 99.6%. In anterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 9.60, sensitivity of 34.2%, and specificity of 94.7%. In posterior procedures, SSEP changes had a DOR of 13.27, sensitivity of 42.6%, and specificity of 94.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

SSEP monitoring is highly specific but weakly sensitive for postoperative neurological deficit following cervical spine surgery. The analysis found that patients with new postoperative neurological deficits were nearly 27 times more likely to have had significant intraoperative SSEP change. Loss of SSEP signals and irreversible SSEP changes seem to indicate a much higher risk of injury than reversible SSEP changes.

Somatosensory Evoked Potentials as a Stand-Alone Tool During Spine Surgery: An Egyptian Preliminary Report

PURPOSE

Monitoring of somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) serves as an early warning system to detect spinal cord injury and is correlated with postoperative sensory findings. It is an indirect indicator of motor function. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of intraoperative SSEPs monitoring as a stand-alone tool during spinal surgeries when motor evoked potentials are not available, to prevent and predict new postoperative neurologic deficits. Motor evoked potentials were not used as the equipment needed to record them was not available at the time of this study.

METHODS

This study included 50 patients, aged 14 to 67 years, undergoing extramedullary manipulations, decompression of an epidural abscess or neoplasm, removal of intramedullary tumor, or arteriovenous malformation or spine correction procedures. Somatosensory evoked potentials were analyzed for latency and peak-to-peak amplitude. Critical SSEP changes were defined as a 50% decrease in amplitude or a 10% increase in latency.

RESULTS

Somatosensory evoked potentials had an overall sensitivity of 81.8%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 91.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative SSEPs have proved to be highly sensitive and specific for iatrogenic injury, mechanical stress caused by cord traction/compression, dural traction, lowered systemic blood pressure, and cord hypothermia. The reversibility of intraoperative SSEP changes showed a highly significant relation to the number of cases with new postoperative deficits as well as type and site of pathologic study (P = 0.00, P = 0.01, and P = 0.00, respectively) but not with the level of pathologic study (P = 0.49).

The Impact of Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring during Spinal Cord and Spine Surgery: A Critical Analysis of 121 Cases

Neuromonitoring has been utilized during spinal surgery to assess the function of the spinal cord in an effort to prevent intraoperative injury. Although its use is widespread, no clear benefit has been demonstrated. Our goal in this study was to interrogate the value of intraoperative neuromonitoring in decreasing the severity and rate of neurological injury during and after spinal surgery. Here we describe our experience of 121 patients who underwent spinal cord procedures with the combination of intraoperative neuromonitoring, to determine its ability to detect neurological changes and the specificity and sensitivity in this setting. The data for the 121 patients who underwent neurophysiological monitoring during various spinal procedures was collected retrospectively. The patients were classified into one of four groups according to the findings of intraoperative monitoring and the clinical outcomes on postoperative neurological exam. Intraoperative monitoring was evaluated for its specificity, sensitivity, and predictive value. In our cohort of 121 patients, the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring had a low sensitivity, which may produce an excessive number of false negatives. Based on these findings, neuromonitoring seems to have a poor positive predictive value and is thus an inappropriate test to prevent harm to patients.

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: What Is the Evidence?

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to (i) assess the risk of neurological injury after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) with and without intraoperative neuromonitoring (ION) and (ii) evaluate differences in the sensitivity and specificity of ION for ACSS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although ION is used to detect impending neurological injuries in deformity surgery, it's utility in ACSS remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple medical reference databases was conducted for studies on ION use for ACSS. Studies that included posterior cervical surgery were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model for heterogeneity. Outcome measure was postoperative neurological injury.

RESULTS

The search yielded 10 studies totaling 26,357 patients. The weighted risk of neurological injury after ACSS was 0.64% (0.23-1.25). The weighted risk of neurological injury was 0.20% (0.05-0.47) for ACDFs compared with 1.02% (0.10-2.88) for corpectomies. For ACDFs, there was no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION (odds ratio, 0.726; confidence interval, CI, 0.287-1.833; P = 0.498). The pooled sensitivities and specificities of ION for ACSS are 71% (CI: 48%-87%) and 98% (CI: 92%-100%), respectively. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION [unimodal: 99% (CI: 97%-100%), multimodal: 92% (CI: 81%-96%), P = 0.0218]. There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivities between unimodal and multimodal [68% vs. 88%, respectively, P = 0.949].

CONCLUSION

The risk of neurological injury after ACSS is low although procedures involving a corpectomy may carry a higher risk. For ACDFs, there is no difference in the risk of neurological injury with or without ION use. Unimodal ION has a higher specificity than multimodal ION and may minimize "subclinical" intraoperative alerts in ACSS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

A role for motor and somatosensory evoked potentials during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients without myelopathy: Analysis of 57 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Although the usage of combined motor and sensory intraoperative monitoring has been shown to improve the surgical outcome of patients with cervical myelopathy, the role of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials (tceMEP) used in conjunction with somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP) in patients presenting with radiculopathy but without myelopathy has been less clear.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients (n = 57) with radiculopathy but without myelopathy, undergoing anterior cervical decompression and fusion at a single institution over the past 3 years, who had intraoperative monitoring with both tceMEPs and SSEPs.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (100%) patients presented with radiculopathy, 53 (93.0%) with mechanical neck pain, 35 (61.4%) with motor dysfunction, and 29 (50.9%) with sensory deficits. Intraoperatively, 3 (5.3%) patients experienced decreases in SSEP signal amplitudes and 4 (6.9%) had tceMEP signal changes. There were three instances where a change in neuromonitoring signal required intraoperative alteration of the surgical procedure: these were deemed clinically significant events/true positives. SSEP monitoring showed two false positives and two false negatives, whereas tceMEP monitoring only had one false positive and no false negatives. Thus, tceMEP monitoring exhibited higher sensitivity (33.3% vs. 100%), specificity (95.6% vs. 98.1%), positive predictive value (33.3% vs. 75.0%), negative predictive value (97.7% vs. 100%), and efficiency (91.7% vs. 98.2%) compared to SSEP monitoring alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we present a retrospective series of 57 patients where tceMEP/SSEP monitoring likely prevented irreversible neurologic damage. Though further prospective studies are needed, there may be a role for combined tceMEP/SSEP monitoring for patients undergoing anterior cervical decompression without myelopathy.

Electrophysiological monitoring during surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy and radiculopathy

Object

The objective of this systematic review was to use evidence-based medicine to examine the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of intraoperative electrophysiological (EP) monitoring in the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disease.

Methods

The National Library of Medicine and Cochrane Database were queried using MeSH headings and key words relevant to cervical spine surgery and EP monitoring. The guidelines group assembled an evidentiary table summarizing the quality of evidence (Classes I–III). The group formulated recommendations that contained the degree of strength based on the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network. Validation was done through peer review by the Joint Guidelines Committee of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons.

Results

The reliance on changes in EP monitoring as an indication to alter a surgical plan or administer steroids has not been observed to reduce the incidence of neurological injury during routine surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy or cervical radiculopathy (Class III). However, there is an absence of study data examining the benefit of altering a surgical plan due to EP changes.

Conclusions

Although the use of EP monitoring may serve as a sensitive means to diagnose potential neurological injury during anterior spinal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy, the practitioner must understand that intraoperative EP worsening is not specific—it may not represent clinical worsening and its recognition does not necessarily prevent neurological injury, nor does it result in improved outcome (Class II). Intraoperative improvement in EP parameters/indices does not appear to forecast outcome with reliability (conflicting Class I data).

Predictive value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during cervical spine surgery: a prospective analysis of 1055 consecutive patients

Object

Despite the growing use of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (IOM) in cervical spinal surgery, limited data exist regarding the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of such a technique in detecting new neurological deficits in this setting. The authors sought to define the incidence of significant intraoperative electrophysiological changes and new postoperative neurological deficits in a cohort of patients undergoing cervical surgery.

Methods

The authors conducted a prospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients who had undergone cervical surgery during a 5-year period at a university-based neurosurgical unit, in which multimodal IOM was recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) were determined using standard Bayesian techniques. The study population included 1055 patients (614 male and 441 female) with a mean age of 55 years.

Results

The IOM modalities performed included somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) recording in 1055 patients, motor evoked potential (MEP) recording in 26, and electromyography (EMG) in 427. Twenty-six patients (2.5%) had significant SSEP changes. Electromyographic activity was transient in 212 patients (49.6%), and 115 patients (26.9%) had sustained burst or train activity. New postoperative neurological deficits occurred in 34 patients (3.2%): 6 had combined sensory and motor deficits, 7 had new sensory deficits, 9 had increased motor weakness, and 12 had new root deficits. Of these 34 patients, 12 had spinal tumors, of which 7 were intramedullary. Overall, of the 34 new postoperative deficits, 21 completely resolved, 9 partially resolved, and 4 had no improvement. The deficits that completely resolved did so on average 3.3 months after surgery. Patients with deficits that did not fully resolve (partial or no improvement) were followed up for an average of 1.8 years after surgery.

Somatosensory evoked potentials had a sensitivity of 52%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100%, and an NPV of 97%. Motor evoked potential sensitivity was 100%, specificity 96%, PPV 96%, and NPV 100%. Electromyography had a sensitivity of 46%, specificity of 73%, PPV of 3%, and an NPV of 97%.

Conclusions

Combined neurophysiological IOM with EMG and SSEP recording and the selective use of MEPs is helpful for predicting and possibly preventing neurological injury during cervical spine surgery.

Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive series review.

OBJECTIVE

To examine performance of transcranial motor-evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring in patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy and potential risk factors for false positive alerts.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although use of TcMEP monitoring has been increasing and has been specifically recommended in patients with cervical myelopathy, rates and risk factors for false positive alerts have not been established.

METHODS

Intraoperative neuromonitoring data for 52 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for cervical myelopathy were reviewed. All major TcMEP alerts were identified. Comprehensive demographic and clinical data, preoperative imaging studies, operative, and anesthesia records were reviewed.

RESULTS

Six of 52 patients (12%) experienced a major TcMEP alert consisting of sustained >80% loss of amplitude. There were no somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP)-related alerts. In 2 cases, an intraoperative wake-up test was negative and in 3 cases, surgery was completed without a wake-up test and without recovery of TcMEP signals. No new postoperative neurologic deficits were observed in these patients. One patient with new postoperative weakness was correctly predicted by loss of TcMEP signals. No new deficit was observed in the remaining 46 patients. Statistical analysis revealed significantly higher body mass index (28.8 vs. 35.0; P = 0.032) and length of surgery (191 vs. 283 minutes; P = 0.019) in patients with false positive alerts.

CONCLUSION

In this series of cervical myelopathy patients, sensitivity and specificity of TcMEP for detection of clinically significant intraoperative cord injury were 100% and 90%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of SSEP were 0% and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value of a TcMEP alert was 17%. Possible risk factors for false positive TcMEP alerts include obesity and increased length of surgery. This study supports superior sensitivity of TcMEP compared with SSEP monitoring but identifies a relatively high false positive rate even in a selected high-risk cervical myelopathy population when this modality is applied in practice.

Successful treatment of cervical myelopathy with minimal morbidity by circumferential decompression and fusion

Circumferential cervical decompression and fusion (CCDF) is an important technique for treating patients with severe cervical myelopathy. While circumferential cervical decompression and fusion may provide improved spinal cord decompression and stability compared to unilateral techniques, it is commonly associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CCDF at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) between January 2003 and December 2004. We identified 53 patients and reviewed their medical records to determine the effectiveness of CCDF for improving myelopathy, pain, and neurological function. Degree of fusion, functional anatomic alignment, and stability were also assessed. Operative morbidity and mortality were measured. The most common causes of cervical myelopathy, instability, or deformity were degenerative disease (57%) and traumatic injury (34%). Approximately one-fifth of patients had a prior fusion performed elsewhere and presented with fusion failure or adjacent-level degeneration. Postoperatively, all patients had stable (22.6%) or improved (77.4%) Nurick grades. The average preoperative and postoperative Nurick grades were 2.1 +/- 1.9 and 0.4 +/- 0.9, respectively. Pain improved in 85% of patients. All patients had radiographic evidence of fusion at last follow-up. The most common complication was transient dysphagia. Our average clinical follow-up was 27.5 +/- 9.5 months. We present an extensive series of patients and demonstrate that cervical myelopathy can successfully be treated with CCDF with minimal operative morbidity. CCDF may provide more extensive decompression of the spinal cord and may be more structurally stable. Concerns regarding operation-associated morbidity should not strongly influence whether CCDF is performed.

Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in nonmyelopathic patients--a review of 1,039 cases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring has been shown to reduce the incidence of new postoperative neurological deficits in scoliosis surgery. However, its usefulness during cervical spine surgery remains a subject of debate.

PURPOSE

To determine the utility of intraoperative SSEP monitoring in a specific patient population (those with cervical radiculopathy in the absence of myelopathy) who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 1,039 nonmyelopathic patients who underwent single or multilevel ACDF surgery. The control group (462 patients) did not have intraoperative SSEP monitoring, whereas the monitored group (577 patients) had continuous intraoperative SSEP monitoring performed.

OUTCOME MEASURE

A new postoperative neurological deficit.

METHODS

SSEP tracings were reviewed for all 577 patients in the monitored group and all significant signal changes were noted. Medical records were reviewed for all 1,039 patients to determine if any new neurological deficits developed in the immediate postoperative period.

RESULTS

None of the patients in the control group had any new postoperative neurological deficits. In the monitored group there were six instances of transient SSEP changes (1 due to suspected carotid artery compression; 5 thought to be due to transient hypotension) which resolved with the appropriate intraoperative intervention (repositioning of retractors; raising the arterial blood pressure). Upon waking up from anesthesia, one patient in the monitored group had a new neurological deficit (partial central cord syndrome) despite normal intraoperative SSEP signals.

CONCLUSIONS

ACDF appears to be a safe surgical procedure with a low incidence of iatrogenic neurological injury. Transient SSEP signal changes, which improved with intraoperative interventions, were not associated with new postoperative neurological deficits. An intraoperative neurological deficit is possible despite normal SSEP signals.

Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: focus on cervical myelopathy and related issues

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The use of neurophysiologic monitoring during surgical procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) is controversial.

PURPOSE

The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding various monitoring techniques as applied to the patient with CSM.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

A systematic literature review.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurophysiologic monitoring is a diagnostic tool for assessment of neurologic function during cervical spine surgery. Recording of somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (tceMEPs), and electromyograms (EMGs) may be useful as these monitoring modalities provide complementary information.

Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine corpectomy surgery: experience with 508 cases

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVES

To review consecutive cases of cervical spine corpectomy surgery performed with intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is controversy about the utility of SSEP monitoring during anterior cervical spine surgery. There is no study in the literature that has specifically evaluated the utility of SSEP monitoring for cervical spine corpectomy surgery.

METHODS

Intraoperative SSEP tracings for 508 patients (average age, 55.7 years; 268 male, 240 female) who underwent anterior cervical fusion with single-level or multilevel corpectomies were reviewed. Intraoperative and postoperative records were analyzed to determine if any new neurologic deficits developed when the patients woke up from anesthesia.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of a new postoperative neurologic deficit in this series of patients was 2.4% (11 with nerve root injury, 1 with quadriplegia). The incidence of significant SSEP changes was 5.3% (27 of 508 patients). The most common identifiable cause of SSEP changes was hypotension, and the most common neurologic deficit was deltoid (C5) weakness. One patient had irreversible SSEP changes, and he woke up with new-onset quadriplegia. The calculated sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative SSEP monitoring for detecting impending or resultant intraoperative iatrogenic neurologic injury were 77.1% and 100%, respectively. However, if the isolated nerve root injuries are removed from the analysis, then both the calculated sensitivity and the negative predictive values were 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative SSEP monitoring can alert the surgeon to adverse iatrogenic intraoperative events with potential for neurologic injury. Most SSEP signal changes are reversible and do not result in a clinical deficit. Isolated nerve root injury appears to be the most common iatrogenic intraoperative injury during cervical spine corpectomy surgery.

Effectiveness of Intraoperative Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring During Cervical Spinal Operations on Animals with Spinal Cord Dysfunction

We conducted somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) monitoring on 3 dogs with cervical spinal cord dysfunction caused by various diseases throughout operative procedures to examine whether the intraoperative SEP monitoring was effective for prediction of spinal cord conductive function. The SEP was recorded on the scalp via stimulation of the ulnar nerve. Stable SEP was recorded in all animals examined. Its amplitude was decreased by surgical manipulations of the regio vertebralis, but the amplitude gradually recovered once the manipulations were halted. The latency showed small variation throughout the operations. This evidence suggests that intraoperative SEP monitoring may provide continuous and instantaneous information regarding the functional integrity of the central nervous system.

Neurophysiological monitoring of spinal cord function during instrumented anterior cervical fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) monitor global spinal cord function, and the interpretation of motor loss is based on inferred rather than direct measurements. Therefore, SSEPs may not be useful for identifying motor function deficits caused by anterior spinal column injury or nerve root injury during decompression or placement of instrumentation. For these reasons, adjunctive methods for monitoring may be especially useful during cervical spine surgery.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of SSEP and transcranial electrical motor evoked potential (tceMEP) monitoring of spinal cord function during anterior fusion of the cervical spine.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive instrumented, anterior cervical spine surgeries performed by the same surgeon at a single institution for 119 patients.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Record of neurophysiological alerts during surgery and record of postoperative neurological deficits not present before surgery.

METHODS

Spinal cord function was monitored intraoperatively with recordings of ulnar and posterior tibial nerve SSEPs and tceMEPs.

RESULTS

Six neurophysiologic alerts occurred that prompted surgeon and/or anesthesiologist intervention. Three patients developed new motor weakness after surgery. One patient had temporary right-leg weakness that was predicted accurately by the disappearance of the right lower extremity tceMEPs. One patient had additional temporary postoperative compromise of the right C5-C6 spinal nerve roots that could not be detected intraoperatively because of absent baseline tceMEPs from the affected muscles. For one patient who developed quadriparesis postoperatively, tceMEP monitoring was precluded by the excessive use of neuromuscular blockade during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The results illustrate the potential utility of intraoperative SSEPs and the tceMEPs for detection of changes in spinal cord function related to patient positioning and hemodynamic effects during anterior cervical fusion.

The effects from lumbar nerve root transection in rats on spinal somatosensory and motor-evoked potentials

STUDY DESIGN

Spinal somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs), elicited by mixed nerve and dermatomal stimulation, and compound evoked muscle potentials (CMAPs), elicited by lower thoracic interspinous space stimulation, were recorded in rats that underwent single nerve root transection.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate and compare the effects of single nerve root transection using various electrophysiological models and to define a monitoring strategy that can easily and accurately predict compromise caused by a single lumbosacral nerve root injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Neuromonitoring is an important and effective preventive measure against neurologic complications during spinal surgery, but monitoring the lumbosacral nerve roots is not well established.

METHODS

Rats received (Group I) a sham operation or had the (Group II) left L4, (Group III) L5, or (Group IV) L6 nerve root transected. SSEP were recorded at the thoracolumbar junction following stimulation of the sciatic nerve (M-SSEP) and the L5 dermatome (D-SSEP). CMAP was recorded at the intrinsic muscles of the foot by electrical stimulation in the lower thoracic spinal cord. Potentials recorded before and after a single nerve root transection were compared and correlated with clinical status by walking-track analysis 1 week later.

RESULTS

Relative amplitudes in Group II were 54.1% (M-SSEP), 84.6% (D-SSEP), and 85.5% (CMAP); 25.2% (M-SSEP), 66.5% (D-SSEP), and 85.8% (CMAP) in Group III; and 66.5% (M-SSEP), 95.5% (D-SSEP), and 23.2% (CMAP) in Group IV. M-SSEP is sensitive but not specific to single nerve root injury. D-SSEP and CMAP are less sensitive but more specific.

CONCLUSIONS

Injury to a single lumbosacral nerve root is diagnosed more easily with M-SSEP. With D-SSEP and CMAP, it was possible to differentiate the lesioned nerve root by stimulating the primary dermatome or recording from the innervated muscle. M-SSEP is an easy-sampling and appropriate tool for screening nerve root injury; its poor specificity may be overcome by using D-SSEP and CMAP in addition. Optimal monitoring of the lumbosacral nerve roots during lumbar spinal surgery requires the administration of M-SSEP, D-SSEP, and CMAP to provide independent verification of lumbosacral nerve root integrity and to allow detection of the occasional injuries that selectively affect either the sensory or motor system.

Human brain plasticity: an emerging view of the multiple substrates and mechanisms that cause cortical changes and related sensory dysfunctions after injuries of sensory inputs from the body

Injuries of peripheral inputs from the body cause sensory dysfunctions that are thought to be attributable to functional changes in cerebral cortical maps of the body. Prevalent theories propose that these cortical changes are explained by mechanisms that preeminently operate within cortex. This paper reviews findings from humans and other primates that point to a very different explanation, i.e. that injury triggers an immediately initiated, and subsequently continuing, progression of mechanisms that alter substrates at multiple subcortical as well as cortical locations. As part of this progression, peripheral injuries cause surprisingly rapid neurochemical/molecular, functional, and structural changes in peripheral, spinal, and brainstem substrates. Moreover, recent comparisons of extents of subcortical and cortical map changes indicate that initial subcortical changes can be more extensive than cortical changes, and that over time cortical and subcortical extents of change reach new balances. Mechanisms for these changes are ubiquitous in subcortical and cortical substrates and include neurochemical/molecular changes that cause functional alterations of normal excitation and inhibition, atrophy and degeneration of normal substrates, and sprouting of new connections. The result is that injuries that begin in the body become rapidly further embodied in reorganizational make-overs of the entire core of the somatosensory brain, from peripheral sensory neurons to cortex. We suggest that sensory dysfunctions after nerve, root, dorsal column (spinal), and amputation injuries can be viewed as diseases of reorganization in this core.

The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: a critical analysis of 423 cases

OBJECT

The aim of this observational clinical study was to analyze the impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring (IOM) on the surgical procedure and to assess the benefits of such monitoring.

METHODS

Data for 423 patients who underwent neurophysiological IOM with somatosensory evoked potentials and brainstem auditory evoked potentials during neurosurgical procedures were collected prospectively. The patients were classified into one of five groups according to the findings of IOM, the intervention following a monitoring alarm, and the patient's postoperative neurological condition. These groups were as follows: patients with true-positive findings with intervention (42 cases, 9.9%), those with true-positive findings without intervention (42 cases, 9.9%), those with false-positive findings (nine cases, 2.1%), those with false-negative findings (16 cases, 3.8%), and those with true-negative findings (314 cases, 74.2%). Different interventions followed an event identified with monitoring. These interventions were related to dissection in 17 cases, to perfusion pressure in 11, to a limitation of the surgical procedure in five, to vessel clipping in four, to vasospasm in three, and to retraction in one case. In one case the surgical procedure was abandoned. A critical analysis and cautious estimation of the interventions revealed that IOM was helpful in preventing a postoperative deficit in 5.2% of the monitored cases. CONCLUSIONS; For critical analysis of the benefits of IOM one must evaluate not only the findings of IOM and the patient's postoperative neurological condition but also the intraoperative findings and surgical interventions following a monitoring alarm. Evidence is presented that IOM is helpful in preventing a postoperative deficit.