John P Dormans1. 1. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Dormans@email.chop.edu
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a critical examination of standard of care (SOC) related to intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spine surgery. Definition of SOC and its applications in the surgical setting is accompanied by discussions on SOC for neuromonitoring, credentialing of neuromonitoring personnel, off-site remote monitoring, and unattended surgeon-controlled neuromonitoring devices. METHODS: A literature review of neuromonitoring and SOC over the past 10 years was performed. This information, in conjunction with the author's experience and evidence-based medicine, was used to formulate a framework for critique and discussion. CONCLUSION: An appropriate SOC as it relates to neuromonitoring is difficult to devise because of national variance with regard to qualifications of neurophysiologic technical and professional personnel, different levels of training and certification, and anesthesia protocols. A unified group of surgeons working in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of experienced doctoral level nonphysician and physician professional surgical neurophysiologists is needed to define a protocol for providing and interpreting such data. In addition to ensuring that only the most qualified and experienced personnel are delivering and/or interpreting neuromonitoring services, surgeons, hospital administrators, and insurance company medical directors need to understand the different service delivery models and their respective strengths and limitations with particular attention to the qualifications and competencies of all respective parties. Only then can a well-defined SOC be established, thus improving the treatment of surgical patients for whom neuromonitoring is required.
STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: This article presents a critical examination of standard of care (SOC) related to intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spine surgery. Definition of SOC and its applications in the surgical setting is accompanied by discussions on SOC for neuromonitoring, credentialing of neuromonitoring personnel, off-site remote monitoring, and unattended surgeon-controlled neuromonitoring devices. METHODS: A literature review of neuromonitoring and SOC over the past 10 years was performed. This information, in conjunction with the author's experience and evidence-based medicine, was used to formulate a framework for critique and discussion. CONCLUSION: An appropriate SOC as it relates to neuromonitoring is difficult to devise because of national variance with regard to qualifications of neurophysiologic technical and professional personnel, different levels of training and certification, and anesthesia protocols. A unified group of surgeons working in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of experienced doctoral level nonphysician and physician professional surgical neurophysiologists is needed to define a protocol for providing and interpreting such data. In addition to ensuring that only the most qualified and experienced personnel are delivering and/or interpreting neuromonitoring services, surgeons, hospital administrators, and insurance company medical directors need to understand the different service delivery models and their respective strengths and limitations with particular attention to the qualifications and competencies of all respective parties. Only then can a well-defined SOC be established, thus improving the treatment of surgical patients for whom neuromonitoring is required.
Authors: Martin Sutter; Andreas Eggspuehler; Dezsoe Jeszenszky; Frank Kleinstueck; Tamàs F Fekete; Daniel Haschtmann; François Porchet; Jiri Dvorak Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 3.134
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: Stanley A Skinner; Elif Ilgaz Aydinlar; Lawrence F Borges; Bob S Carter; Bradford L Currier; Vedran Deletis; Charles Dong; John Paul Dormans; Gea Drost; Isabel Fernandez-Conejero; E Matthew Hoffman; Robert N Holdefer; Paulo Andre Teixeira Kimaid; Antoun Koht; Karl F Kothbauer; David B MacDonald; John J McAuliffe; David E Morledge; Susan H Morris; Jonathan Norton; Klaus Novak; Kyung Seok Park; Joseph H Perra; Julian Prell; David M Rippe; Francesco Sala; Daniel M Schwartz; Martín J Segura; Kathleen Seidel; Christoph Seubert; Mirela V Simon; Francisco Soto; Jeffrey A Strommen; Andrea Szelenyi; Armando Tello; Sedat Ulkatan; Javier Urriza; Marshall Wilkinson Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Harminder Singh; Richard W Vogel; Robert M Lober; Adam T Doan; Craig I Matsumoto; Tyler J Kenning; James J Evans Journal: Scientifica (Cairo) Date: 2016-05-16