Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring: Focusing on the Basic Knowledge of Orthopedic Spine Surgeon and Neurosurgeon as Members of a Team Performing Spine Surgery under Neuromonitoring

Efficacy of D-Wave Monitoring Combined With the Transcranial Motor-Evoked Potentials in High-Risk Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective Multicenter Study of the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to clarify the efficacy of multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM), especially in transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potentials (TES-MEPs) with spinal cord-evoked potentials after transcranial stimulation of the brain (D-wave) in the detection of reversible spinal cord injury in high-risk spinal surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed 1310 patients who underwent TES-MEPs during spinal surgery at 14 spine centers. We compared the monitoring results of TES-MEPs with D-wave vs TES-MEPs without D-wave in high-risk spinal surgery.

RESULTS

There were 40 cases that used TES-MEPs with D-wave and 1270 cases that used TES-MEPs without D-wave. Before patients were matched, there were significant differences between groups in terms of sex and spinal disease category. Although there was no significant difference in the rescue rate between TES-MEPs with D-wave (2.0%) and TES-MEPs (2.5%), the false-positivity rate was significantly lower (0%) in the TES-MEPs-with-D-wave group. Using a one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis, 40 pairs of patients from the two groups were selected. Baseline characteristics did not significantly differ between the matched groups. In the score-matched analysis, one case (2.5%) in both groups was a case of rescue (P = 1), five (12.5%) cases in the TES-MEPs group were false positives, and there were no false positives in the TES-MEPs-with-D-wave group (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

TES-MEPs with D-wave in high-risk spine surgeries did not affect rescue case rates. However, it helped reduce the false-positivity rate.

Impact of Preoperative Motor Status for the Positive Predictive Value of Transcranial Motor-Evoked Potentials Alerts in Thoracic Spine Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the validity of transcranial motor-evoked potentials (Tc-MEP) in thoracic spine surgery and evaluate the impact of specific factors associated with positive predictive value (PPV).

METHODS

One thousand hundred and fifty-six cases of thoracic spine surgeries were examined by comparing patient backgrounds, disease type, preoperative motor status, and Tc-MEP alert timing. Tc-MEP alerts were defined as an amplitude decrease of more than 70% from the baseline waveform. Factors were compared according to preoperative motor status and the result of Tc-MEP alerts. Factors that showed significant differences were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Overall sensitivity was 91.9% and specificity was 88.4%. The PPV was significantly higher in the preoperative motor deficits group than in the preoperative no-motor deficits group for both high-risk (60.3% vs 38.3%) and non-high-risk surgery groups (35.1% vs 12.8%). In multivariate logistic analysis, the significant factors associated with true positive were surgical maneuvers related to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (odds ratio = 11.88; 95% CI: 3.17-44.55), resection of intradural intramedullary spinal cord tumor (odds ratio = 8.83; 95% CI: 2.89-27), preoperative motor deficit (odds ratio = 3.46; 95% CI: 1.64-7.3) and resection of intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumor (odds ratio = 3.0; 95% CI: 1.16-7.8). The significant factor associated with false positive was non-attributable alerts (odds ratio = .28; 95% CI: .09-.85).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons are strongly encouraged to use Tc-MEP in patients with preoperative motor deficits, regardless of whether they are undergoing high-risk spine surgery or not. Knowledge of PPV characteristics will greatly assist in effective Tc-MEP enforcement and minimize neurological complications with appropriate interventions.

Application of Intraoperative Electromyography Intelligent Monitoring in Orthopedic Surgery under General Anesthesia

To study the application of intraoperative EMG intelligent monitoring in orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia, a total of 53 patients who underwent orthopedic surgery from February 2021 to February 2022 were selected. The combined monitoring of somatosensory evoked potential (SEP), motor evoked potential (MEP), and electromyography (EMG) was used to analyze the monitoring efficiency. In 38 of the 53 patients, the intraoperative signal was normal, and there was no postoperative neurological dysfunction; one case had abnormal signal, and the abnormality still existed after debugging, but no obvious neurological dysfunction was found after operation; the remaining 14 cases had abnormal signal. There were 13 early warnings in SEP monitoring; 12 early warnings in MEP monitoring; 10 early warnings in EMG monitoring. There were 15 cases of early warning in the joint monitoring of the three, and the sensitivity of the combined monitoring of SEP + MEP + EMG was significantly higher than that of the single monitoring of SEP, MEP, and EMG (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value between combined monitoring and single monitoring (p > 0.05). The combined monitoring of EMG, MEP, and SEP in orthopedic surgery can significantly improve the safety of surgery, its sensitivity and negative predictive value were significantly higher than the monitoring effects of the two alone.

The Utility of Transcranial Stimulated Motor-Evoked Potential Alerts in Cervical Spine Surgery Varies Based on Preoperative Motor Status

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective multicenter observational study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to investigate the validity of transcranial motor-evoked potentials (Tc-MEP) in cervical spine surgery and identify factors associated with positive predictive value when Tc-MEP alerts are occurred.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The sensitivity and specificity of Tc-MEP for detecting motor paralysis are high; however, false-positives sometimes occur.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors examined Tc-MEP in 2476 cases of cervical spine surgeries and compared patient backgrounds, type of spinal disorders, preoperative motor status, surgical factors, and the types of Tc-MEP alerts. Tc-MEP alerts were defined as an amplitude reduction of more than 70% from the control waveform. Tc-MEP results were classified into two groups: false-positive and true-positive, and items that showed significant differences were extracted by univariate analysis and detected by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Overall sensitivity was 66% (segmental paralysis: 33% and lower limb paralysis: 95.8%) and specificity was 91.5%. Tc-MEP outcomes were 33 true-positives and 233 false-positives. Positive predictive value of general spine surgery was significantly higher in cases with a severe motor status than in a nonsevere motor status (19.5% vs . 6.7%, P =0.02), but not different in high-risk spine surgery (20.8% vs . 19.4%). However, rescue rates did not significantly differ regardless of motor status (48% vs . 50%). In a multivariate logistic analysis, a preoperative severe motor status [ P =0.041, odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.03-5.86] and Tc-MEP alerts during intradural tumor resection ( P <0.001, OR: 7.44, 95% CI: 2.64-20.96) associated with true-positives, while Tc-MEP alerts that could not be identified with surgical maneuvers ( P =0.011, OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.073-0.71) were associated with false-positives.

CONCLUSION

The utility of Tc-MEP in patients with a preoperative severe motor status was enhanced, even in those without high-risk spine surgery. Regardless of the motor status, appropriate interventions following Tc-MEP alerts may prevent postoperative paralysis.

Current Trends in Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring: A Survey Analysis among Japanese Expert Spine Surgeons

Introduction

Although intraoperative spinal neuromonitoring (IONM) is recommended for spine surgeries, there are no guidelines regarding its use in Japan, and its usage is mainly based on the surgeon's preferences. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an overview of the current trends in IONM usage in Japan.

Methods

In this web-based survey, expert spine surgeons belonging to the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research were asked to respond to a questionnaire regarding IONM management. The questionnaire covered various aspects of IONM usage, including the preferred modality, operation of IONM, details regarding muscle-evoked potential after electrical stimulation of the brain (Br(E)-MsEP), and need for consistent use of IONM in major spine surgeries.

Results

Responses were received from 134 of 186 expert spine surgeons (response rate, 72%). Of these, 124 respondents used IONM routinely. Medical staff rarely performed IONM without a medical doctor. Br(E)-MsEP was predominantly used for IONM. One-third of the respondents reported complications, such as bite injuries caused by Br(E)-MsEP. Interestingly, two-thirds of the respondents did not plan responses to alarm points. Intramedullary spinal cord tumor, scoliosis (idiopathic, congenital, or neuromuscular in pediatric), and thoracic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament were representative diseases that require IONM.

Conclusions

IONM has become an essential tool in Japan, and Br(E)-MsEP is a predominant modality for IONM at present. Although we investigated spine surgeries for which consistent use of IONM is supported, a cost-benefit analysis may be required.

The muscle evoked potential after epidural electrical stimulation of the spinal cord as a monitor for the corticospinal tract: studies by collision technique and double train stimulation

To study if spinal motor evoked potentials (SpMEPs), muscle responses after electrical stimulation of the spinal cord, can monitor the corticospinal tract. Study 1 comprised 10 consecutive cervical or thoracic myelopathic patients. We recorded three types of muscle responses intraoperatively: (1) transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs), (2) SpMEPs and (3) SpMEPs + TcMEPs from the abductor hallucis (AH) using train stimulation. Study 2 dealt with 5 patients, who underwent paired train stimulation to the spinal cord with intertrain interval of 50-60 ms for recording AH SpMEPs. We will also describe two illustrative cases to demonstrate the clinical value of AH SpMEPs for monitoring the motor pathway. In Study 1, SpMEPs and SpMEPs + TcMEPs recorded from AH measured nearly the same, suggesting the collision of the cranially evoked volleys with the antidromic signals induced by spinal cord stimulation via the corticospinal tracts. In Study 2, the first and second train stimuli elicited almost identical SpMEPs, indicating a quick return of transmission after 50-60 ms considered characteristic of the corticospinal tract rather than the dorsal column, which would have recovered much more slowly. Of the two patients presented, one had no post-operative neurological deteriorations as anticipated by stable SpMEPs, despite otherwise insufficient IONM, and the other developed post-operative motor deficits as predicted by simultaneous reduction of TcMEPs and SpMEPs in the face of normal SEPs. Electrical stimulation of the spinal cord primarily activates the corticospinal tract to mediate SpMEPs.