Literature DB >> 17912559

Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during 409 lumbosacral surgical procedures in 409 patients.

Martin A Sutter1, Andreas Eggspuehler, Dieter Grob, Francois Porchet, Dezsö Jeszenszky, Jiri Dvorak.   

Abstract

A prospective study on 409 patients who received multimodel intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during lumbosacral surgical procedures between March 2000 and December 2005 was carried out. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of MIOM techniques used to monitor conus medullaris, cauda equina and nerve root function during lumbosacral decompression surgery. MIOM has increasingly become important to monitor ascending and descending pathways, giving immediate feedback information regarding any neurological deficit during the decompression and stabilisation procedure in the lumbosacral region. Intraoperative spinal- and cortical-evoked potentials, combined with continuous EMG- and motor-evoked potentials of the muscles, were evaluated and compared with postoperative clinical neurological changes. A total of 409 consecutive patients with lumbosacral spinal stenosis with or without instability were monitored by MIOM during the entire surgical procedure. A total of 388 patients presented true-negative findings while two patients presented false negative and 1 patient false-positive findings. Eighteen patients presented true-positive findings where neurological deficit after the operation was intraoperatively predicted. Of the 18 true-positive findings, 12 patients recovered completely; however, 6 patients recovered only partially. The sensitivity of MIOM applied during decompression and fusion surgery of the lumbosacral region was calculated as 90%, and the specificity was calculated as 99.7%. On the basis of the results of this study, MIOM is an effective method of monitoring the conus medullaris, cauda equina and nerve root function during surgery at the lumbosacral junctions and might reduce postoperative surgical-related complications and therefore improve the long-term results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17912559      PMCID: PMC2072902          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0432-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  12 in total

1.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of complications after facet joint excision and pedicle screw fixation in 148 cases.

Authors:  K Okuyama; E Abe; T Suzuki; Y Tamura; M Chiba; K Sato
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1999-08

2.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; M L Lewis; L M Quinn; J M Persenaire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Evaluation of pedicle screw insertion monitored by intraoperative evoked electromyography.

Authors:  B V Darden; K E Wood; M K Hatley; J H Owen; J Kostuik
Journal:  J Spinal Disord       Date:  1996-02

4.  Complications of transpedicular lumbosacral fixation for non-traumatic disorders.

Authors:  H Pihlajämaki; P Myllynen; O Böstman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-03

5.  Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device.

Authors:  W J Elias; N E Simmons; G J Kaptain; J B Chadduck; R Whitehill
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.115

6.  The use of dermatomal evoked responses during surgical procedures that use intrapedicular fixation of the lumbosacral spine.

Authors:  J R Toleikis; A O Carlvin; D E Shapiro; M F Schafer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Evaluation with evoked and spontaneous electromyography during lumbar instrumentation: a prospective study.

Authors:  W C Welch; R D Rose; J R Balzer; G B Jacobs
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study.

Authors:  K Thomsen; F B Christensen; S P Eiskjaer; E S Hansen; S Fruensgaard; C E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1997-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Neurophysiologic monitoring of spinal nerve root function during instrumented posterior lumbar spine surgery.

Authors:  Bikash Bose; Lawrence R Wierzbowski; Anthony K Sestokas
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  The diagnostic value of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during spine surgery: a prospective study of 1,017 patients.

Authors:  Martin Sutter; Andreas Eggspuehler; Dieter Grob; Dezsoe Jeszenszky; Arnaldo Benini; François Porchet; Alfred Mueller; Jiri Dvorak
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  14 in total

Review 1.  Current opinions and recommendations on multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgeries.

Authors:  Martin Sutter; Vedran Deletis; Jiri Dvorak; Andreas Eggspuehler; Dieter Grob; David Macdonald; Alfred Mueller; Francesco Sala; Tetsuya Tamaki
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Mixed-muscle electrode placement ("jumping" muscles) may produce false-negative results when using transcranial motor evoked potentials to detect an isolated nerve root injury in a porcine model.

Authors:  Russ Lyon; Shane Burch; Jeremy Lieberman
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Trending algorithm discriminates hemodynamic from injury related TcMEP amplitude loss.

Authors:  Paul Jasiukaitis; Russ Lyon
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Monitoring lumbar plexus integrity in extreme lateral transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine: a new protocol with anatomical bases.

Authors:  Mariana Bendersky; Carlos Solá; Javier Muntadas; Marcelo Gruenberg; Silvana Calligaris; Maximiliano Mereles; Marcelo Valacco; Julio Bassani; Matías Nicolás
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Back pain in patients with degenerative spine disease and intradural spinal tumor: what to treat? when to treat?

Authors:  David Bellut; Urs M Mutter; Martin Sutter; Andreas Eggspuehler; Anne F Mannion; François Porchet
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Do intra-operative neurophysiological changes predict functional outcome following decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis? A prospective study.

Authors:  Krzysztof Piasecki; Gerit Kulik; Katarzyna Pierzchala; Etienne Pralong; Prashanth J Rao; Constantin Schizas
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-03

7.  Demographic Trends in the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Scoliosis Surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Howard Y Park; Jeremiah R Cohen; Evan E Vellios; Elizabeth L Lord; Adedayo O Ashana; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-08-15

8.  Neurophysiological monitoring of lumbar spinal nerve roots: A case report of postoperative deficit and literature review.

Authors:  Yuguang Chen; Baoqing P Wang; Junlin Yang; Yaolong Deng
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-11-19

9.  Demographic Trends in the Use of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Scoliosis Surgery in the United States.

Authors:  Remi M Ajiboye; Howard Y Park; Jeremiah R Cohen; Evan E Vellios; Elizabeth L Lord; Adedayo O Ashana; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-12-05

10.  A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery.

Authors:  Mark M Stecker
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2012-07-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.