Literature DB >> 20048097

Risk factors for spinal cord injury during surgery for spinal deformity.

Michael G Vitale1, Derek W Moore, Hiroko Matsumoto, Ronald G Emerson, Whitney A Booker, Jaime A Gomez, Edward J Gallo, Joshua E Hyman, David P Roye.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord monitoring is now considered standard care during surgery for spinal deformity. Combined somatosensory and motor evoked potential monitoring allows the detection of early spinal cord dysfunction in most patients. The purpose of the current study was to identify clinical factors that increase the risk of intraoperative electrophysical changes and to provide management recommendations.
METHODS: The records of 162 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for the treatment of spinal deformity at a tertiary referral center were reviewed. Electrophysical monitoring of these patients was considered to have been successful if reproducible signals had been obtained. Relevant electrophysical changes included a reduction, as compared with baseline, of >50% in the amplitude of the somatosensory evoked potentials; an increase, as compared with baseline, of >10% in the latency of the somatosensory evoked potentials; a loss of motor evoked potentials; and an abrupt decrease of >75% in the motor evoked potentials.
RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one (93%) of the 162 patients were monitored successfully. Four of the eleven patients with unsuccessful monitoring had neuromuscular scoliosis. Twelve of the 151 successfully monitored patients had a true electrophysical event, and two of them were found to have new postoperative neurologic deficits that represented a change from the findings of their preoperative neurologic examination. The determined causes of these electrophysical events included curve correction in eight patients, hypotension in two, direct cord trauma in one, and malposition of a pedicle screw in one. The patients with a true electrophysical event had a significantly higher rate of neurologic events than did the patients who did not have a true electrophysical event (p < 0.001). The rate of true electrophysical events was significantly higher in the patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities than it was in the patients with no comorbidities (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: Combined somatosensory and motor evoked potential monitoring effectively prevents neurologic injury in most children undergoing surgery for spinal deformity. Despite the potential for false-positive results, we recommend setting a low threshold for defining relevant electrophysical changes. Rapid intervention can reverse these changes and avoid potentially serious neurologic complications. Patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities may be at a higher risk for having relevant electrophysical events.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20048097     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01839

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  11 in total

1.  Return of motor evoked potentials after knee flexion in the setting of high-grade spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Justin Tilan; Lindsay M Andras; Mark D Krieger; David L Skaggs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Complications following spine fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Robert F Murphy; James F Mooney
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-12

3.  Mitigating spinal cord distraction injuries: the effect of durotomy in decreasing cord interstitial pressure in vitro.

Authors:  Waleed Awwad; Mahdi Bassi; Ian Shrier; Abdulaziz Al-Ahaideb; Russell J Steele; Peter F Jarzem
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-01-20

4.  Improving successful rate of transcranial electrical motor-evoked potentials monitoring during spinal surgery in young children.

Authors:  Junlin Yang; Zifang Huang; Haihua Shu; Yuguang Chen; Xinrui Sun; Weifeng Liu; Yunling Dou; Chaofan Xie; Xiang Lin; Yong Hu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Motor evoked potentials in 43 high risk spine deformities.

Authors:  Mirza Biscevic; Sejla Biscevic; Farid Ljuca; Barbara Ur Smrke; Cagatay Ozturk; Merita Tiric-Campara
Journal:  Med Arch       Date:  2014-10-15

6.  Epidemiology of persistent iatrogenic spinal cord injuries in Western Norway.

Authors:  Mathias S Æsøy; Stein-Erik H Solvang; Marit Grønning; Tiina Rekand
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 2.708

7.  Iatrogenic Spinal Cord Injury Resulting From Cervical Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Alan H Daniels; Robert A Hart; Alan S Hilibrand; David E Fish; Jeffrey C Wang; Elizabeth L Lord; Zorica Buser; P Justin Tortolani; D Alex Stroh; Ahmad Nassr; Bradford L Currier; Arjun S Sebastian; Paul M Arnold; Michael G Fehlings; Thomas E Mroz; K Daniel Riew
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-04-01

8.  The Impact of Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring during Spinal Cord and Spine Surgery: A Critical Analysis of 121 Cases.

Authors:  Tarik Ibrahim; Oliver Mrowczynski; Omar Zalatimo; Vernon Chinchilli; Jonas Sheehan; Robert Harbaugh; Elias Rizk
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-11-19

Review 9.  Surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Complications.

Authors:  Omar A Al-Mohrej; Sahar S Aldakhil; Mohammed A Al-Rabiah; Anwar M Al-Rabiah
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2020-02-24

10.  Severe hypotension with loss of motor evoked potentials during cervical surgery prompting immediate cardiovascular resuscitation.

Authors:  Daniel C Kim; Ethan J Boyd; Thomas A Boyd; Hannah E Granger; Richard P Menger
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2021-06-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.