Literature DB >> 26475414

Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring to patients with preoperative spinal deficits: judging its feasibility and analyzing the significance of rapid signal loss.

Shujie Wang1, Jianguo Zhang1, Ye Tian1, Jianxiong Shen1, Yu Zhao1, Hong Zhao1, Shugang Li1, Bin Yu1, Xisheng Weng2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Transcranial motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring has been widely adopted in spine surgery, but so far the useful monitoring data for patients with preoperative spinal deficits (PPSDs) are limited. Originally we thought that they seemed technically more difficult and less reliable in performing the MEP monitoring to PPSDs.
PURPOSE: Our objective was to study (1) the feasibility of MEP monitoring in PPSDs and the (2) the significance of rapid MEP loss. STUDY DESIGN/
SETTING: A retrospective case notes study from a prospective patient register was used as the study design. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 332 PPSDs who underwent posterior spine surgery with a reliable MEP monitoring were collected between September 2010 and December 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: Relevant MEP loss was identified as rapid amplitude reduction (more than 80% MEP) associated with high-risk surgical maneuvers or high-risk diagnoses.
METHOD: The muscles with higher strength were used to record the optimal MEP signal. MEP monitoring of these patients was considered to be feasible if reproducible signals had been obtained; moreover, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were computed. The significance of the patients with rapid MEP loss was analyzed.
RESULTS: From a total of 332 PPSDs, 27 cases showed significant MEP loss (23 true positive, 4 false positive), and 21 showed new spinal deficits. Invalid MEP baselines were found in 11 paralysis and 6 severely incomplete paraplegia patients, and success rate of reliable MEP was 95.1% in PPSDs. The congenital kyphoscoliosis, tuberculous kyphoscoliosis, and thoracic spinal stenosis are considered high-risk diagnoses to result in MEP loss. The sensitivity of intraoperative MEP monitoring was 100%, the specificity 98.7%, the positive predictive value 85.2%, and the negative predictive value 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative MEP monitoring is feasible for most of the PPSDs. The rapid MEP loss during high-risk diagnoses and complicated surgical procedures may indicate new spinal deficits.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  High-risk surgical maneuvers; Intraoperative monitoring; Motor evoked potential; Preoperative spinal deficits; Rapid MEP loss; Spinal surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26475414     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.09.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  9 in total

1.  Comparison of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring outcomes between cervical and thoracic spine surgery.

Authors:  Shujie Wang; Yuan Tian; Xiangquan Lin; Zhifu Ren; Yu Zhao; Jiliang Zhai; Xiaojuan Zhang; Yanwei Zhao; Yingyue Dong; Congran Zhao; Ye Tian
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  The prediction of intraoperative cervical cord function changes by different motor evoked potentials phenotypes in cervical myelopathy patients.

Authors:  Shujie Wang; Zhifu Ren; Jia Liu; Jianguo Zhang; Ye Tian
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 2.474

3.  Clinical Outcomes of Intraoperative Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring During Circumferential Decompression for Myelopathy Associated with Thoracic-Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament.

Authors:  Xiaosong Yang; Xiao Liu; Xiaoguang Liu; Miao Yu; Ling Jiang; Yue Ma; Liyuan Tao; Zhongjun Liu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-04-29

4.  Predictive value of intraoperative D-wave and m-MEP neurophysiological monitoring in patients with preoperative motor deficits in immediate and late postoperative period.

Authors:  Megha Bir; Uditi Gupta; Ashok Kumar Jaryal; Akanksha Singh; Ritesh Netam; Shashank Sharad Kale; Sarat P Chandra; Manmohan Singh; Girija Prasad Rath
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2021-03-04

5.  Intra-Operative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Patients with Intraspinal Abnormalities Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion.

Authors:  Junyin Qiu; Wanyou Liu; Benlong Shi; Yang Li; Huang Yan; Zezhang Zhu; Zhen Liu; Xu Sun; Yong Qiu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring alteration during en bloc laminectomy surgery for thoracic ossification of ligamentum flavum.

Authors:  Xiaoning Feng; Li Deng; Haoyu Feng; Yong Hu; Jianghua Tian; Lin Sun
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-09-27

7.  Narcotrend-guided intraoperative care of a Trisomy 21 paediatric patient who underwent occipitocervical fusion.

Authors:  Evangeline Ko Villa; Dominic Villa; Rafael C Bundoc
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-02-11

8.  A Retrospective Study of Surgical Correction for Spinal Deformity with and without Osteotomy to Compare Outcome Using Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring with Evoked Potentials.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Jing-Fan Yang; Yao-Long Deng; Xie-Xiang Shao; Zi-Fang Huang; Jun-Lin Yang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-08-14

9.  Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Auxiliary Significance of DNEP for MEP-positive Event During Severe Spinal Deformity Surgery.

Authors:  Jian Chen; Yao-Long Deng; Wen-Yuan Sui; Jing-Fan Yang; Jing Xu; Zi-Fang Huang; Jun-Lin Yang
Journal:  Clin Spine Surg       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 1.876

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.