STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire study presented to practicing spine surgeons. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgeon preference and availability of selected electrophysiologic neuromonitoring for different spine surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Maximizing the safety of spinal procedures and limiting potential iatrogenic neurologic injury has made intraoperative neuromonitoring an attractive option. METHODS: We distributed a questionnaire to 180 orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons at a clinically oriented spine meeting asking surgeon preference and availability of various types of intraoperative neuromonitoring modalities for different types of surgical procedures. Demographic data were also gathered. RESULTS: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) were the most available neuromonitoring modality, followed by electromyographies and motor-evoked potentials. In both anterior and posterior cervical surgery, SSEPs were the most preferred modality. MEPs were frequently preferred in myelopathic cervical cases. Almost 70% preferred some neuromonitoring for anterior thoracic/thoracolumbar cases and 55% for posterior thoracic/thoracolumbar cases. Surgeon satisfaction was related to the number of available neuromonitoring modalities. No significant differences were found between orthopedist and neurosurgeon preferences. Fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to use neuromonitoring for specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: SSEPs remains the most widely available and preferred type of neuromonitoring for spine surgeons. The type of case and neurologic status of patient (eg, presence of myelopathy) affects these choices. Surgeons were more satisfied with greater neuromonitoring availability, and were more likely to use neuromonitoring if they had a fellowship background.
STUDY DESIGN: Questionnaire study presented to practicing spine surgeons. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgeon preference and availability of selected electrophysiologic neuromonitoring for different spine surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Maximizing the safety of spinal procedures and limiting potential iatrogenic neurologic injury has made intraoperative neuromonitoring an attractive option. METHODS: We distributed a questionnaire to 180 orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons at a clinically oriented spine meeting asking surgeon preference and availability of various types of intraoperative neuromonitoring modalities for different types of surgical procedures. Demographic data were also gathered. RESULTS: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) were the most available neuromonitoring modality, followed by electromyographies and motor-evoked potentials. In both anterior and posterior cervical surgery, SSEPs were the most preferred modality. MEPs were frequently preferred in myelopathic cervical cases. Almost 70% preferred some neuromonitoring for anterior thoracic/thoracolumbar cases and 55% for posterior thoracic/thoracolumbar cases. Surgeon satisfaction was related to the number of available neuromonitoring modalities. No significant differences were found between orthopedist and neurosurgeon preferences. Fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to use neuromonitoring for specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: SSEPs remains the most widely available and preferred type of neuromonitoring for spine surgeons. The type of case and neurologic status of patient (eg, presence of myelopathy) affects these choices. Surgeons were more satisfied with greater neuromonitoring availability, and were more likely to use neuromonitoring if they had a fellowship background.
Authors: Pinar Yalinay Dikmen; Matthew F Halsey; Altug Yucekul; Marinus de Kleuver; Lloyd Hey; Peter O Newton; Irem Havlucu; Tais Zulemyan; Caglar Yilgor; Ahmet Alanay Journal: Spine Deform Date: 2020-11-23
Authors: Remi M Ajiboye; Stephen D Zoller; Anthony D'Oro; Zachary D Burke; William Sheppard; Christopher Wang; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang; Sina Pourtaheri Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Remi M Ajiboye; Stephen D Zoller; Akshay Sharma; Gina M Mosich; Austin Drysch; Jesse Li; Tara Reza; Sina Pourtaheri Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Risheng Xu; Eva K Ritzl; Mohammed Sait; Daniel M Sciubba; Jean-Paul Wolinsky; Timothy F Witham; Ziya L Gokaslan; Ali Bydon Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2011-09-30
Authors: Remi M Ajiboye; Anthony D'Oro; Adedayo O Ashana; Rafael A Buerba; Elizabeth L Lord; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang; Sina Pourtaheri Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 3.241