Need for head and neck repositioning to restore electrophysiological signal changes at positioning for cervical myelopathy surgery

Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Neurosurgery

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is a crucial advancement in neurosurgery, enhancing procedural safety and precision. This technique involves continuous real-time assessment of neurophysiological signals, aiding surgeons in timely interventions to protect neural structures. In addition to inherent limitations, IONM necessitates a detailed anesthetic plan for accurate signal recording. Given the growing importance of IONM in neurosurgery, we conducted a narrative review including the most relevant studies about the modalities and their application in different fields of neurosurgery. In particular, this review provides insights for all physicians and healthcare professionals unfamiliar with IONM, elucidating commonly used techniques in neurosurgery. In particular, it discusses the roles of IONM in various neurosurgical settings such as tumoral brain resection, neurovascular surgery, epilepsy surgery, spinal surgery, and peripheral nerve surgery. Furthermore, it offers an overview of the anesthesiologic strategies and limitations of techniques essential for the effective implementation of IONM.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in the Diagnosis of Intraoperative Neurological Decline in the Setting of Spinal Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

In an effort to prevent intraoperative neurological injury during spine surgery, the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has increased significantly in recent years. Using IONM, spinal cord function can be evaluated intraoperatively by recording signals from specific nerve roots, motor tracts, and sensory tracts. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies to evaluate the efficacy of IONM among patients undergoing spine surgery for any indication.

METHODS

The current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) and was registered on PROSPERO. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS for all studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of neuromonitoring, including somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), motor evoked potential (MEP) and electromyography (EMG), either on their own or in combination (multimodal). Studies were included if they reported raw numbers for True Positives (TP), False Negatives (FN), False Positives (FP) and True Negative (TN) either in a 2 × 2 contingency table or in text, and if they used postoperative neurologic exam as a reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated to evaluate the overall efficacy of each modality type using a bivariate model adapted by Reitsma et al, for all spine surgeries and for individual disease groups and regions of spine. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was assessed using the quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

A total of 163 studies were included; 52 of these studies with 16,310 patients reported data for SSEP, 68 studies with 71,144 patients reported data for MEP, 16 studies with 7888 patients reported data for EMG and 69 studies with 17,968 patients reported data for multimodal monitoring. The overall sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC for SSEP were 71.4% (95% CI 54.8-83.7), 97.1% (95% CI 95.3-98.3), 41.9 (95% CI 24.1-73.1) and .899, respectively; for MEP, these were 90.2% (95% CI 86.2-93.1), 96% (95% CI 94.3-97.2), 103.25 (95% CI 69.98-152.34) and .927; for EMG, these were 48.3% (95% CI 31.4-65.6), 92.9% (95% CI 84.4-96.9), 11.2 (95% CI 4.84-25.97) and .773; for multimodal, these were found to be 83.5% (95% CI 81-85.7), 93.8% (95% CI 90.6-95.9), 60 (95% CI 35.6-101.3) and .895, respectively. Using the QUADAS-2 ROB analysis, of the 52 studies reporting on SSEP, 13 (25%) were high-risk, 10 (19.2%) had some concerns and 29 (55.8%) were low-risk; for MEP, 8 (11.7%) were high-risk, 21 had some concerns and 39 (57.3%) were low-risk; for EMG, 4 (25%) were high-risk, 3 (18.75%) had some concerns and 9 (56.25%) were low-risk; for multimodal, 14 (20.3%) were high-risk, 13 (18.8%) had some concerns and 42 (60.7%) were low-risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that all neuromonitoring modalities have diagnostic utility in successfully detecting impending or incident intraoperative neurologic injuries among patients undergoing spine surgery for any condition, although it is clear that the accuracy of each modality differs.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023384158.