Cotrel-dubousset instrumentation in children using simultaneous motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring

Neurophysiological monitoring of spinal cord function during spinal deformity surgery: 2020 SRS neuromonitoring information statement

The Scoliosis Research Society has developed an updated information statement on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of spinal cord function during spinal deformity surgery. The statement reviews the risks of spinal cord compromise associated with spinal deformity surgery; the statement then discusses the various modalities that are available to monitor the spinal cord, including somatosensory-evoked potentials, motor-evoked potentials, and electromyographic (EMG) options. Anesthesia considerations, the importance of a thoughtful team approach to successful monitoring, and the utility of checklists are also discussed. Finally, the statement expresses the opinion that utilization of intraoperative neurophysiological spinal cord monitoring in spinal deformity surgery is the standard of care when the spinal cord is at risk.

Somatosensory and motor evoked potentials during correction surgery of scoliosis in neurologically asymptomatic Chiari malformation-associated scoliosis: A comparison with idiopathic scoliosis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in neurologically asymptomatic Chiari malformation-associated scoliosis (CMS) patients with and without syringomyelia as compared with those in idiopathic scoliosis (IS) ones, and to identify whether the deformities have impacts on the neurophysiological monitoring.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included neurologically asymptomatic CMS patients undergoing posterior correction surgery between January 2010 and January 2016. IS patients were involved as control group and a subgroup of age- and height-matched IS patients were selected. The age, standing height and Cobb angles of main curve were measured. The SEPs latency and amplitude, MEPs amplitude, and the rate of abnormal SEPs pathologic change were compared between CMS and IS patients using independent-sample t-test and Chi-square test.

RESULTS

Sixty CMS patients and 210 IS patients were included. There was no difference between CMS patients and IS or matched IS patients in SEPs latency and amplitude, MEPs amplitude or rate of abnormal SEPs (p > 0.05). Forty-eight CMS patients concurrent with syringomyelia were associated with higher Cobb angle of main curve and lower SEPs amplitude than those without syringomyelia (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found between CMS patients with and without syringomyelia in age, height, SEPs latency, MEPs amplitude or rate of abnormal SEPs (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Neurologically asymptomatic CMS patients showed similar absolute values of neurophysiological monitoring with IS patients. The syringomyelia in CMS indicated more severe curvature and lower SEPs amplitude even after posterior fossa decompression.

Comparison of the Wake-up Test and Combined TES-MEP and CSEP Monitoring in Spinal Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective clinical analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the wake-up test with that of combined monitoring of transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials (TES-MEP) and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (CSEP) in spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

TES-MEP/CSEP combined monitoring is being increasingly recognized as the ideal approach to detect spinal neurophysiological compromise during spinal surgery; however, as a result the merit of the wake-up test is now in doubt.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TES-MEP/CSEP combined monitoring was performed simultaneously in 426 patients who underwent spinal surgery at our department, and wake-up tests were conducted on 23 patients because of positive neurophysiological monitoring results with uncertain causes or persistent positive monitoring findings after all potential causes had been resolved. Preoperative and postoperative neurological examinations were performed as the gold standard to detect irreversible spinal function compromise. All data were collected to compare the efficiency of TES-MEP/CSEP combined monitoring with that of the wake-up test.

RESULTS

Positive results of TES-MEP/CSEP combined monitoring were recorded in 64 cases. Among them, the positive monitoring findings agreed with the results of the neurological examination in 51 cases, and the monitoring results did not match that of neurological examination in 13 cases. No false-negative result was observed. The sensitivity of TES-MEP/CSEP monitoring was 100%, the specificity was 96.5%, and the Youden index was 0.965. Wake-up tests were conducted in 23 cases. In 8 patients the positive monitoring findings completely matched the postoperative neurological examination results. In contrast, in the other 15 cases with negative neurophysiological monitoring results, only 9 patients retained intact neurological function and 6 patients suffered compromised neurological function. The sensitivity of the wake-up test was 57.1%, the specificity was 100%, and the Youden index was 0.571.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined TES-MEP and CSEP monitoring, with its high sensitivity and specificity, is an effective method for monitoring spinal function during surgery and should be the preferred choice. The wake-up test is a useful complementary method for monitoring because of its high specificity.

False negative and positive motor evoked potentials in one patient: is single motor evoked potential monitoring reliable method? A case report and literature review

STUDY DESIGN

A case report and literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To report a false negative and delayed positive motor-evoked potential (MEP) in 1 patient.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An unreliable MEP can result in fatal outcomes because surgeons have recently begun to depend on the MEP for intraoperative decision-making.

METHODS

We report a case of a false MEP during scoliosis surgery that showed false negative and positive MEPs during a series of operations.

RESULTS

A 23-year-old man with a history of spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia presented with severe kyphoscoliosis. The initial neurologic examination did not reveal any neurologic abnormalities. Surgical correction and fusion were performed with transcranial MEP monitoring. During the entire procedure, the MEP did not reveal any signs of cord injury. However, lower limb paralysis and paresthesia was observed when the patient awakened. After 2 additional surgical procedures to recover the neurologic deficit, the MEP did not show any signs of cord injury but the patient's neurologic status had recovered slightly. At postoperative day 8, the neurologic status recovered, and a third operation was performed to fix the long rods. However, there were abnormal amplitudes in both lower limbs but the patient's neurologic status was almost normal.

CONCLUSION

From our experience of false negative and positive MEP in 1 patient, it is concluded that undesirable events can occur with use of MEP in scoliosis or other spinal surgery. Therefore, we warn the surgeons too heavily rely on the MEP monitoring, and propose a further prospective study as well as use of alternative method that can improve the reliability of single MEP.

Combined motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for intramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery: correlation of clinical and neurophysiological data in 17 consecutive procedures

The primary objective of neurophysiologic monitoring during surgery is to prevent permanent neurological sequelae. We prospectively evaluated whether the combined use of somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential (SEP/MEP) for intramedullary spinal cord tumor (IMSCT) surgery may be beneficial. Combined SEP/MEP monitoring was attempted in 20 consecutive procedures for IMSCT operations. Trains of transcranial electric stimulation over the motor cortex were used to elicit MEPs from limb target muscles. The tibial and median nerves were stimulated to record SEP. The operation was paused or the surgical strategy was modified in every case of significant SEP/MEP changes. Combined SEP/MEP recording was successfully achieved in 17 of 20 (85%) operations. In 3 of 17 operations, SEP and MEP were stable, and all patients remained neurologically intact after surgery. Significant MEP changes were recorded in 12 operations (70%). In 7 of these 12 operations, MEP recovered to some extent after surgical intervention, and these patients showed no neurological changes. In the remaining 5 operations, MEP did not recover and the patients had a transient (n = 2) or a permanent (n = 1) motor deficit. Significant SEP changes with stable MEP were related to a transient hypesthesia. Combined SEP/MEP monitoring provided higher sensitivity, and higher positive and negative predictive value than single-modality techniques. Detection of MEP changes and adjustment of surgical strategy may prevent irreversible pyramidal tract damage.

Intraoperative multimodality monitoring in adult spinal deformity: analysis of a prospective series of one hundred two cases with independent evaluation

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 102 consecutive adult patients who underwent intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during spinal deformity corrective surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To report the sensitivity and specificity of combined IOM in this study population using the postoperative neurologic examination as the "gold standard."

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

IOM is recommended during corrective spinal surgery and has been widely used in the pediatric deformity population. However, there are limited data describing the application of IOM in adults undergoing spinal deformity corrective surgery.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 102 patients undergoing spinal deformity corrective surgery between 2001 and 2004. Patients were monitored using at least 2 or more electrophysiological methods including somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP), motor-evoked potentials (MEP), and electromyography (EMG).

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 41.5 years (+/-17). The majority of the operative procedures involved instrumented fusion from thoracic to lumbar/sacral spine (n = 55), thoracic-pelvis fusion (n = 26), and a combined total of 32 osteotomies (including 25 pedicle subtraction osteotomies and 7 Smith-Peterson osteotomies). SSEPs were recorded successfully in 101 (99%), EMGs in 89 of 102 (87%), and MEPs in 12 of 16 (75%). Five cases were true positives (4.95%), and these were all detected by combined monitoring (2-SSEP, 2-EMG, 1-MEP). There were no false positives with SSEPs, but EMG resulted in 30 of 89 (34%) false positives. There were 4 false negatives with SSEPs, which reduced its sensitivity to 33%. There was 1 false negative with EMG, and 0 with MEPs. When these results were collated, the overall sensitivity of combined multimodality IOM in this adult deformity series was 100%, specificity 84.3%, PPV 13.9%, and NPV 97%. The combined sensitivity in the osteotomy group (n = 32) was 67%, specificity 98%, PPV 80%, and NPV 96%. In comparison, there were no IOM abnormalities in those patients who had in situ/minor corrective procedures (n = 18; largely adult degenerative scoliosis).

CONCLUSION

Multimodality IOM of spinal cord sensory and motor function during surgical correction of adult spinal deformity is feasible and provides useful neurophysiological data with an overall sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 84.3% (67% and 98%, respectively in patients undergoing major deformity correction).

Combined motor- and somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring for spine and spinal cord surgery: correlation of clinical and neurophysiological data in 85 consecutive procedures

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of neurophysiological monitoring during surgery is to prevent permanent neurological sequelae. To avoid neurological injury, we applied somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) and/or motor-evoked potentials (MEPs). We evaluated whether the combination of SEP and MEP for spinal surgery may be beneficial.

SETTING

Asian Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

METHODS

Combined SEP/MEP monitoring was attempted in 100 consecutive procedures for spinal operations. Trains of transcranial electrical stimulation over the motor cortex were used to elicit MEPs from the muscles of the upper/lower limbs. The tibial and median nerves were stimulated to record SEP.

RESULTS

Combined SEP/MEP recording was successfully achieved in 85 of 100 operations. In 61 of 85 operations (71%), SEP and MEP were stable, and all patients remained neurologically intact after surgery. Significant MEP changes were recorded in 20 operations, either combined with (n=4) or without (n=16) SEP changes. In 7 of these 20 operations, MEP recovered to some extent after surgical intervention, and these patients showed no neurological changes. In the remaining 13 operations, MEP did not recover and the patients had a transient (n=4) or a permanent (n=3) motor deficit. Significant SEP changes with stable MEP were observed in four operations, all of which were not related to postoperative motor deficit.

CONCLUSION

Combined SEP/MEP monitoring provided higher sensitivity and higher positive/negative predictive value than single-modality monitoring techniques. Detection of MEP changes and adjustment of surgical strategy may prevent irreversible pyramidal tract damage.

Spinal cord monitoring in scoliosis surgery using an epidural electrode. Results of a prospective, consecutive series of 191 cases

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively accrued series of 191 consecutive patients who underwent intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during scoliosis corrective surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the monitoring outcome of idiopathic and neuromuscular scoliosis. To demonstrate the usefulness of the epidural electrode. To report sensitivity and specificity of the monitoring method employed at a single institution.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Reports in the literature emphasized the difficulty to obtain data in neuromuscular patients. Multimodality spinal cord monitoring has been recommended. Despite their still debated composition, neurogenic motor-evoked potentials have proven their validity in clinical practice.

METHODS

Somatosensory and neurogenic evoked potentials were attempted in all patients presenting for scoliosis correction between 1999 and 2005. Study patients were divided into 3 groups: group 1, idiopathic; group 2, neuromuscular; and group 3, miscellaneous origins.

RESULTS

The use of the epidural electrode demonstrated significant usefulness in the ability of monitoring otherwise nonmonitored patients, especially in group 2. Inability to obtain any evoked potentials occurred in 4 cases (2.1%). Five cases were found to be true positives. An adapted and rapid intervention permitted to avoid new postoperative deficit in all cases. There was no instance of false-negative data. The overall method sensitivity was 100%, and specificity was 52.69%.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a single epidural electrode allowing somatosensory evoked potentials recording and spinal cord stimulation alternately is a safe and valid method of intraoperative monitoring.

Intraoperative Electrophysiologic Monitoring: Considerations for Complex Spinal Surgery

Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring techniques have evolved as the complexity of spinal surgery has increased and the limitations of individual modalities have become apparent. Current monitoring strategies include a combination of techniques directed toward detecting changes in sensory, motor, and nerve root function. Close coordination and communication between the monitoring personnel, surgeon, and anesthesiologist is essential to effective intraoperative monitoring.

Anaesthesia for correction of scoliosis in children

Surgical correction of spinal deformities in children presents a challenge to the anaesthetist because of the extensive nature of the surgery, the co-morbidities of the patients and the constraints on anaesthetic techniques of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is the most common deformity. Patients with scoliosis secondary to neuromuscular conditions are at greatest risk of perioperative problems, particularly excessive blood loss and respiratory failure. The risk of spinal cord damage can be decreased by the use of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring, particularly monitoring of the lower limb compound muscle action potential evoked by transcranial electrical stimulation. Specific anaesthetic techniques are required for this monitoring to be reliable. Because of concerns about spinal cord perfusion there is now less reliance on induced hypotension and haemodilution to reduce blood loss, with emphasis on proper patient positioning, controlled haemodynamics and antifibrinolytic therapy. Effective postoperative pain management requires a multimodal approach.

Effects of Anesthetic Agents and Physiologic Changes on Intraoperative Motor Evoked Potentials

Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) have shown promise as a valuable tool for monitoring intraoperative motor tract function and reducing postoperative plegia. MEP monitoring has been reported to contribute to deficit prevention during resection of tumors adjacent to motor structures in the cerebral cortex and spine, and in detecting spinal ischemia during thoracic aortic reconstruction. Many commonly used anesthetic agents have long been known to depress MEP responses and reduce MEP specificity for motor injury detection. Although new stimulation techniques have broadened the spectrum of anesthetics that can be used during MEP monitoring, certain agents continue to have dose-dependent effects on MEP reliability. Understanding the effects of anesthetic agents and physiologic alterations on MEPs is imperative to increasing the acceptance and application of this technique in the prevention of intraoperative motor tract injury. This review is intended as an overview of the effects of anesthetics and physiology on the reproducibility of intraoperative myogenic MEP responses, rather than an analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of this monitoring method in the prevention of motor injury.

Monitoring scoliosis surgery with combined multiple pulse transcranial electric motor and cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials from the lower and upper extremities

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective case review was performed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the value, rapidity, and safety of combined multiple-pulse transcranial electric stimulation motor-evoked potential and somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Leg somatosensory-evoked potentials can miss motor deficits, and a 50% amplitude warning criterion can produce false alarms.

METHODS

For this study, 33 scoliosis surgeries in neurologically normal patients under propofol/fentanyl anesthesia omitting neuromuscular blockade were monitored with four-extremity multiple-pulse transcranial electric stimulation muscle motor-evoked potentials and cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials. Instead of amplitude criteria, parallel (same-direction) change was used to identify systemic alteration and nonparallel (one- or two-limb) deterioration to identify focal neurologic compromise. Clinical observation and intraoperative electroencephalography were used to assess adverse effects.

RESULTS

Instantaneous motor-evoked potentials and rapidly reproducible cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials provided comprehensive feedback every 0.8 to 6.7 minutes (median, 2.4 minutes) without adverse effects. Parallel (systemic) changes without alarm or deficit included motor-evoked potential fading or temporary loss and leg somatosensory-evoked potential amplitudes below 50% of initial, maximum, or median intraoperative values in 10% to 37% of the cases. Three nonparallel changes occurred: 1) abrupt bilateral leg somatosensory-evoked potential 20% to 30% reduction without motor-evoked potential change during instrumentation resolving spontaneously over 30 minutes, with transient postoperative sensory symptoms; 2) right-arm somatosensory-evoked potential and motor-evoked potential reduction during hyperabduction restored after repositioning, without deficit; 3) abrupt bilateral leg motor-evoked potential loss preceding 30% to 60% somatosensory-evoked potential reduction during derotation rapidly restored after instrumentation release, without deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

In neurologically normal patients, the combined methods are safe and rapid, and could improve the sensitivity and specificity of scoliosis monitoring. Arm controls facilitate differentiation between systemic alterations and focal neurologic compromise.

Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord

Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (INM) using somatosensory and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) has become popular to reduce neural risk and to improve intraoperative surgical decision making. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring is affected by the choice and management of the anesthetic agents chosen. Because inhalational and intravenous anesthetic agents have effects on neural synaptic and axonal functional activities, the anesthetic effect on any given response will depend on the pathway affected and the mechanism of action of the anesthetic agent (i.e., direct inhibition or indirect effects based on changes in the balance of inhibitory or excitatory inputs). In general, responses that are more highly dependent on synaptic function will have more marked reductions in amplitude and increases in latency as a result of the synaptic effects of inhalational anesthetic agents and similar effects at higher doses of intravenous agents. Hence, recording cortical somatosensory evoked potentials and myogenic MEPs requires critical anesthetic choices for INM. The management of the physiologic milieu is also important as central nervous system blood flow, intracranial pressure, blood rheology, temperature, and arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure produce alterations in the responses consistent with the support of neural functioning. Finally, the management of pharmacologic neuromuscular blockade is critical to myogenic MEP recording in which some blockade may be desirable for surgery but excessive blockade may eliminate responses. A close working relationship of the monitoring team, the anesthesiologist, and the surgeon is key to the successful conduct and interpretation of INM.

Safety of intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential monitoring

This article reviews intraoperative transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring safety based on comparison with other clinical and experimental brain stimulation methods and clinical experience in more than 15000 cases. Comparative analysis indicates that brain damage and kindling are highly unlikely. There have been remarkably few adverse events. Pulse train TES-induced or coincidental seizures (n = 5) are rare, probably because of very brief (<0.03 second) stimuli, anesthesia, and the general absence of predisposing cerebral conditions. Soft bite blocks may prevent tongue or lip laceration (n = 29) or mandibular fracture (n = 1). Rare cardiac arrhythmia (n = 5) and intraoperative awareness (n = 1) may be coincidental. Minor scalp burns (n = 2) are rare. Although possible, no spinal epidural recording electrode complications or injuries resulting from TES-induced movement were found. There have been no recognized adverse neuropsychological effects, headaches, or endocrine disturbances. Comprehensive relative contraindications include epilepsy, cortical lesions, convexity skull defects, raised intracranial pressure, cardiac disease, proconvulsant medications or anesthetics, intracranial electrodes, vascular clips or shunts, and cardiac pacemakers or other implanted biomedical devices. Otherwise unexplained intraoperative seizures and possibly arrhythmias are indications to abort TES. With appropriate precautions in expert hands, the well-established benefits of TES MEP monitoring decidedly outweigh the associated risks.

The benefit of neurogenic mixed evoked potentials for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during correction of severe scoliosis: a case study

STUDY DESIGN

A case report is presented.

OBJECTIVE

To present a case in which surgical correction of a severe scoliotic curve caused unilateral loss of neurogenic mixed evoked potential data despite unchanged somatosensory data.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgical correction of large scoliotic curves presents a risk to the function of the spinal cord. Multimodality intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord is recommended during such procedures.

METHODS

A 13-year-old girl with severe double major scoliosis underwent a staged operative procedure for correction of her spine deformity. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring using somatosensory-evoked potentials and neurogenic mixed evoked potentials was performed for each stage.

RESULTS

During the final stage (a T4-L5 posterior instrumentation and fusion) left neurogenic mixed evoked potential data were lost approximately 45 minutes after placement of the left-side, correcting rod. The surgeon was warned of the data change. Set bolts were loosened at all fixation points, and the data quickly returned to within normal limits of baseline. Somatosensory data never approached warning criteria at any point during surgery. The patient awakened with no neurologic deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurophysiologic monitoring using both somatosensory-evoked potentials and neurogenic mixed evoked potentials is recommended when surgery is performed to correct spine deformity. The Stagnara wake-up test, somatosensory-evoked potentials, and neurogenic mixed evoked potentials are important components of spinal cord monitoring during surgery, and should be used together for optimal protection of neurologic function.

Corticospinal volleys and compound muscle action potentials produced by repetitive transcranial stimulation during spinal surgery

OBJECTIVES

To report our experience with neurophysiological monitoring of corticospinal function using compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) produced by repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation in a large series of patients, after defining optimal stimulus parameters in a small group of patients.

METHODS

In 100 patients undergoing spinal surgery, corticospinal volleys were recorded using epidural electrodes, or CMAPs were recorded from innervated muscles, or both techniques were used to monitor spinal cord function. In subsets of patients, stimulus parameters were varied to determine the optimal parameters for CMAP recordings, using the corticospinal volleys to guide the initial choice.

RESULTS

Recordings of corticospinal volleys indicated that less energy was delivered to the cortex if the duration of each stimulus in the stimulus train was brief (e.g. 50 micros) and that there was attenuation of D and I waves in the corticospinal volley when the interstimulus interval in the train was <5 ms. An interstimulus interval of 5 ms proved significantly more effective than an interstimulus interval of 2 ms in evoking CMAPs, but resulted in a more complex, dispersed electromyographic (EMG) potential. The superiority of the 5 ms interval did not depend on stimulus intensity or the existence of pre-existing neurological deficit. Using trains of 5 pulses of duration 50 micros, interstimulus interval 5 ms and intensity 500 V, satisfactory CMAPs could be recorded in 55 of 82 patients, significantly less often in neurologically impaired patients than in neurologically normal subjects. Epidural recordings of the corticospinal volley were obtained in 61 of 69 patients, again more often in neurologically normal subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

When epidural recordings can be made, direct recordings of corticospinal activity are probably more reliable than recordings of CMAPs. However, epidural recordings are not suitable under all circumstances, and the ability to record CMAPs reliably represents an advance in intraoperative monitoring. Under the anaesthetic conditions used in the present study, the optimal stimulus parameters consist of a train of 5 stimuli of 50 micros duration at an interstimulus interval of 5 ms and an intensity of 500 V.

Spinal cord monitoring: somatosensory- and motor-evoked potentials

Monitoring myogenic motor EPs after transcranial electrical stimulation is effective in detecting spinal cord ischemia. During thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery, this technique is sufficiently rapid to allow timely interventions aimed at correcting ischemic conditions and preserving spinal cord blood flow. If strategies are applied to protect the spinal cord during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair (e.g., distal bypass, cerebrospinal fluid drainage, reattachment of segmental arteries), motor EP monitoring should be included in this protocol to improve neurologic outcome further. Although SSEPs provide information regarding the adequacy of spinal cord blood flow, monitoring SSEPs during thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair has serious limitations. The response time is too slow to be of practical use. SSEPs also do not provide information regarding anterior horn motor function and supply, whereas the motor neurons in the anterior horn are most likely to sustain ischemic injury.

Evaluation of various evoked potential techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective study compared the outcomes of different evoked potential (EP) techniques for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reliability of different EP techniques administered during scoliosis surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A number of different methods of intraoperative spinal cord monitoring are available. Because each has its own advantages and limitations, multimodal spinal cord monitoring has been proposed to improve monitoring reliability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cortical somatosensory-evoked potential (CSEP), cortical motor-evoked potential (CMEP), spinal somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP), and spinal cord-evoked potential (SCEP) were applied simultaneously to 30 patients undergoing surgical correction for spinal deformity. The presence of the EP waveforms and their reproducibilities over separate tests were compared. In addition, the monitoring outcomes were evaluated with the clinical results.

RESULTS

Of the 30 patients, CSEP waveforms were successfully recorded in 28 cases (93%), SCEP in 25 cases (83%), CMEP in 24 cases (80%), and SSEP in 21 cases (70%). Latencies of each EP technique showed no significant variability. However, amplitudes showed significant differences between different techniques. SCEP and CMEP showed clearer waveforms of greater amplitude that could be detected faster than CSEP and SSEP waveforms. SCEP and SSEP waveforms were more easily influenced by the surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

CSEP and CMEP are recommended for routine monitoring, so that both ascending and descending tracts are monitored. If adequate signals for either of these proposed monitoring methods cannot be easily obtained, SSEP can substitute for CSEP, whereas SCEP can substitute for CMEP.

Spinal cord and nerve root monitoring during surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis

The author describes application of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring to surgical treatment of lumbar stenosis. Benefits of somatosensory and motor evoked potential studies during surgical correction of spinal deformity are well known and documented. Free-running and evoked electromyographic studies during pedicle screw implantation is an accepted practice at many institutions. However, the functional integrity of spinal cord, cauda equina, and nerve roots should be monitored throughout every stage of surgery including exposure and decompression. Somatosensory evoked potentials monitor overall spinal cord function. Intraoperative electromyography provides continuous assessment of motor root function in response to direct and indirect surgical manipulation. Electromyographic activities observed during exposure and decompression of the lumbosacral spine included complex patterns of bursting and neurotonic discharge. In addition, electromyographic activities at distal musculature were elicited by impacting a surgical instrument or graft plug against bony elements of the spine. All electromyographic events provided direct feedback to the surgical team and were regarded as a cause for concern. Simultaneously monitored evoked potential and electromyographic studies protect spinal cord and nerve roots during seemingly low-risk phases of a surgical procedure when neurologic injury may occur and the patient is placed at risk for postoperative myelopathy or radiculopathy.

A prospective comparison of neurogenic mixed evoked potential stimulation methods: utility of epidural elicitation during posterior spinal surgery

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study of 50 patients who underwent posterior thoracic or thoracolumbar instrumented spinal surgery from June 1998 through June 1999.

OBJECTIVES

To highlight the advantages and disadvantages of neurogenic mixed evoked potential (NMEP) data obtained with three methods of stimulation: epidural, spinous process, and percutaneous.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Reports in the literature have established the efficacy of epidural, spinous process, and percutaneous stimulation of the NMEP response. The three methods have not been compared for reliability, sensitivity, and specificity.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 50 patients who underwent posterior thoracic or thoracolumbar instrumented spinal surgery from June 1998 through June 1999. Somatosensory-evoked potentials were used to monitor upper and lower extremities. An attempt to obtain NMEPs was made in all patients by using percutaneous (PERC-NMEP), spinous process (SP-NMEP), and epidural (EPI-NMEP) stimulation. These data were evaluated for reliability, sensitivity, and specificity. The number of minutes monitored in the postcorrection period were calculated for each method, and stimulus intensities were noted.

RESULTS

In the current study, PERC-NMEPs were obtained in 88% of the patients and were maintained in 91% of those cases, SP-NMEPs were obtained in 96% and maintained in 77%, and EPI-NMEPs were obtained in 100% and maintained in 88%. Data collection continued in the postcorrection period for 46 minutes for PERC-NMEPs, 19 minutes for SP-NMEPs, and 23 minutes for EPI-NMEPs. The study group had no true-positive or false-negative findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Results showed that EPI-NMEPs provide reliable data in a greater number of patients than either SP-NMEPs or PERC-NMEPs. However, PERC-NMEP data are readily maintained during and after the critical time window after corrective spinal maneuvers. The NMEPs elicited with both percutaneous and epidural stimulation have a useful role in an intraoperative spinal cord-monitoring protocol.

Spinal cord monitoring

Over the past two decades, intraoperative spinal cord monitoring has matured into a widely used clinical tool. It is used when the spinal cord is at risk for damage during a surgical procedure. This includes orthopedic, neurosurgical, and certain cardiothoracic procedures. Both somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) and direct motor pathway stimulation techniques are available. The SEP techniques are used most widely, are generally accepted, and have been shown to reduce surgical morbidity. A large multicenter study has shown that SEP monitoring reduces postoperative paraplegia by more than 50-60%. Techniques and literature on clinical applications are reviewed in this report.

Spinal cord monitoring: current state of the art

The intraoperative application of evoked potential and electromyographic (EMG) monitoring has increased significantly over the last 2 decades. Cranial nerve monitoring is widely accepted and used by otologists, neurologic surgeons, and ophthalmologists. Direct and indirect techniques for assessing the peripheral nervous system are used by plastic and orthopedic surgeons when performing intraoperative nerve grafting. Myriad techniques and applications for monitoring the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system have been developed, evaluated, and used by orthopedic and neurologic surgeons involved in spinal surgery.

Comparative study of propofol and midazolam effects on somatosensory evoked potentials during surgical treatment of scoliosis

OBJECTIVE

Studies of the effects on lower-limb cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (CSEP) during total intravenous anesthesia are sparse for propofol and are lacking for midazolam. This study was designed to compare the effects of propofol and midazolam on CSEP under total intravenous anesthesia during intraoperative monitoring for surgical treatment of scoliosis.

METHODS

CSEPs were recorded in two groups of 15 patients during posterior instrumentation for treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. The anesthesia used the combination of atracurium, alfentanil, and an hypnotic agent (propofol for Group I or midazolam for Group II). The main characteristics of the CSEPs (P40 latency and N34-P40 and P40-N50 amplitudes) were recorded using ankle posterior tibial nerve stimulation. The CSEPs were recorded before induction, 10, 70, 100, 130, and 160 minutes after induction, and before the wake-up test. The statistical analysis involved analysis of variance for repeated measures. Both groups were homogeneous before induction.

RESULTS

Neither CSEP deterioration during risk-associated surgical procedures nor postoperative clinical abnormalities were observed. Both propofol and midazolam induced increases in P40 latencies, with the increases being greater and more regular for the propofol-treated group. The amplitude values changed with time for both groups, decreasing mainly after induction; in the midazolam-treated group, the amplitudes were smaller but more stable. Propofol modified the morphological characteristics of the response by decreasing the late P60 component amplitude; the W-shaped CSEP morphological pattern was maintained with midazolam.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the appropriate use of either propofol or midazolam in scoliosis monitoring. Preoperative small-amplitude CSEPs might favor the use of propofol anesthesia.

Somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosis surgery. An accepted standard of care

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of 500 patients undergoing corrective surgery between 1987 and 1997 for spinal deformity caused by idiopathic scoliosis.

OBJECTIVES

To report the sensitivity and specificity of somatosensory-evoked and neurogenic motor-evoked potentials monitoring and the requirements for an intraoperative wake-up test for all idiopathic scoliosis surgeries at a single institution.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Intraoperative monitoring is recommended for use during corrective spinal surgery. Accepted monitoring standards and requirements for an intraoperative wake-up test are still debated.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 500 patients undergoing corrective surgery for idiopathic scoliosis between 1987 and 1997. All patients were monitored using somatosensory-evoked and neurogenic motor-evoked potential techniques, using a standard protocol developed at this institution.

RESULTS

The false-positive rate (significant data change without postoperative neurologic deficit) was 0.014% (n = 7). The true-positive rate (degradation of data that met warning criteria, with a corresponding postoperative neurologic deficit) was 0.004% (n = 2). No false-negative results (normal data during with a postoperative neurologic deficit) were seen. The sensitivity of combined somatosensory-evoked and neurogenic motor-evoked potential data in predicting neurologic status was 98.6%, and the specificity of normal data predicting normal findings in a neurologic examination was 100%.

CONCLUSION

Combined somatosensory-evoked and neurogenic motor-evoked potentials monitoring during idiopathic scoliosis surgery represents a standard of care that obviates the need for an intraoperative wake-up test when reliable data are obtained and maintained.

Surgical monitoring of motor pathways

Intraoperative monitoring of corticospinal function is no longer an experimental technique, having been introduced into routine practice in a number of centers, each of which has now accumulated large series of some hundreds of cases. Different techniques have been developed by these centers; each has advantages and disadvantages, and it is clear that no one technique in particular is optimal for all surgical procedures. The corticospinal system can be activated by transcranial stimulation of the motor cortex or by direct stimulation of the spinal cord with electrical or magnetic stimuli delivered singly or as double or multiple pulses. The evoked activity may be recorded directly from the spinal cord using epidural electrode, or as a postsynaptic volley in motor axons ("neurogenic motor evoked potentials," MEP), or as a compound muscle action potential (CMAP) from innervated muscles. For scoliosis surgery, we use transcranial electrical stimulation, recording the evoked volley from the spinal cord using epidural electrodes at two spinal levels. By simultaneously stimulating the tibial nerves in the popliteal fossae, descending corticospinal volleys and ascending somatosensory volleys can be recorded in the same sweep. Accordingly, this technique allows monitoring of two different modalities of function at two separate levels of the nervous system, a goal that is most desirable because it helps identify the earliest evidence of dysfunction and at the same time minimizes false-positive reports to the surgeon. Our technique has the advantage of being relatively immune to the depressant effects of anesthesia, and full muscle relaxation is possible--even desirable. More peripheral recordings of neurogenic MEP or CMAP, are sensitive to the choice of anesthetic, and the latter requires incomplete curarization. However, these techniques may be appropriate when the pathology is in the low spinal cord or nerve roots.

Neurologic safety in spinal deformity surgery

Paralysis following surgery to correct spinal deformity can be a catastrophic problem. Surgeons must be aware that there are a multitude of risk factors related to the etiology and pattern of deformity and that there are a multitude of events and actions in the operating room and after the surgery that influence the development of paralysis. Patients and families need to know that although paralysis can occur, it is rare, and that it can occur despite the very best efforts of the surgeon. This is a review of the available literature on the subject and some personal experiences of the author.