Literature DB >> 21142458

Impact of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during correction of symptomatic cervical or cervicothoracic kyphosis.

Paul Park1, Anthony C Wang, Jaypal Reddy Sangala, Sung Moon Kim, Shawn Hervey-Jumper, Khoi D Than, Amin Farokhrani, Frank Lamarca.   

Abstract

OBJECT: surgical correction of symptomatic cervical or cervicothoracic kyphosis involves the potential for significant neurological complications. Intraoperative monitoring has been shown to reduce the risk of neurological injury in scoliosis surgery, but it has not been well evaluated during surgery for cervical or cervicothoracic kyphosis. In this article, the authors review a cohort of patients who underwent kyphosis correction with multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM).
METHODS: twenty-nine patients were included in the study. Preoperative and postoperative Cobb angles were measured to determine the extent of correction. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring consisted of somatosensory evoked potentials, transcranial motor evoked potentials (tMEPs), and electromyography activity. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) were assessed for each monitoring modality.
RESULTS: the mean patient age was 58.0 years, and 20 patients were female. The mean pre- and postoperative sagittal Cobb angles were 41.3° and 7.3°, respectively. A total of 8 intraoperative monitoring alerts were observed. Transcranial MEPs yielded a sensitivity of 75%, specificity of 84%, PPV of 43%, and NPV of 95%. Somatosensory evoked potentials had a sensitivity of 25%, specificity of 96%, PPV of 50%, and NPV of 88%. Electromyography resulted in a sensitivity of 0%, specificity of 93%, PPV of 0%, and NPV of 96%. Changes in tMEPs led to successful intervention in 2 cases. There was 1 case in which a C-8 palsy occurred without any changes in MIOM.
CONCLUSIONS: in contrast to sensitivity and PPV, specificity and NPV were generally high in all 3 monitoring modalities. Both false-positive and false-negative results occurred. Transcranial MEP monitoring was the most useful modality and appeared to allow successful intervention in certain cases. Larger, prospective comparative studies are necessary to determine whether MIOM truly decreases the rate of neurological complications and is therefore worth the added economic cost and intraoperative time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21142458     DOI: 10.3171/2010.9.SPINE1085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  14 in total

1.  Characteristics of multi-channel Br(E)-MsEP waveforms for the lower extremity muscles in thoracic spine surgery: comparison based on preoperative motor status.

Authors:  Kazuyoshi Kobayashi; Kei Ando; Mikito Tsushima; Masaaki Machino; Kyotaro Ota; Masayoshi Morozumi; Satoshi Tanaka; Shunsuke Kanbara; Naoki Ishiguro; Shiro Imagama
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  [Intraoperative neuromonitoring in cervical deformity surgery].

Authors:  E Shiban; B Meyer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  Osteotomies in ankylosing spondylitis: where, how many, and how much?

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Juliane Koller; Michael Mayer; Axel Hempfing; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-12-30       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Outcome of L5 radiculopathy after reduction and instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion of high-grade L5-S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and the role of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

Authors:  Ralph T Schär; Martin Sutter; Anne F Mannion; Andreas Eggspühler; Dezsö Jeszenszky; Tamas F Fekete; Frank Kleinstück; Daniel Haschtmann
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Characteristics of deformity surgery in patients with severe and rigid cervical kyphosis (CK): results of the CSRS-Europe multi-centre study project.

Authors:  H Koller; C Ames; H Mehdian; R Bartels; R Ferch; V Deriven; H Toyone; C Shaffrey; J Smith; W Hitzl; J Schröder; Yohan Robinson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Low-dose droperidol suppresses transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential amplitude: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Deguchi; Kenta Furutani; Yusuke Mitsuma; Yoshinori Kamiya; Hiroshi Baba
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.502

7.  Intraoperative Motor-Evoked Potential Disappearance versus Amplitude-Decrement Alarm Criteria During Cervical Spinal Surgery: A Long-Term Prognosis.

Authors:  Dong Gun Kim; Young Doo Choi; Seung Hyun Jin; Chi Heon Kim; Kwang Woo Lee; Kyung Seok Park; Chun Kee Chung; Sung Min Kim
Journal:  J Clin Neurol       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 3.077

8.  Corticobulbar motor evoked potentials from tongue muscles used as a control in cervical spinal surgery.

Authors:  Dong-Gun Kim; Seong-Rae Jo; Minjung Youn; Seung-Jae Hyun; Ki-Jeong Kim; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Hyun-Jib Kim; Kyung Seok Park
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2017-06-07

Review 9.  Should evoked potential monitoring be used in degenerative cervical spine surgery? A systematic review.

Authors:  Alberto Di Martino; Rocco Papalia; Antonio Caldaria; Guglielmo Torre; Luca Denaro; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2019-04-02

10.  Monitoring of Motor and Somatosensory Evoked Potentials During Spine Surgery: Intraoperative Changes and Postoperative Outcomes.

Authors:  Shin Hye Chang; Yoon Ghil Park; Dae Hyun Kim; Seo Yeon Yoon
Journal:  Ann Rehabil Med       Date:  2016-06-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.