H Kang1, H S Gwak2, S H Shin3, M K Woo4, I H Jeong4, H Yoo3, J W Kwon3, S H Lee3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of System Cancer Science, Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, Goyang, Korea. 3. Neuro-Oncology Clinic, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea. 4. Neurology Clinic, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the monitoring rate, sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative monitoring (IOM) during removal of intradural extramedullary (IDEM) or epidural metastatic spinal tumors. Also, to assess the efficacy of monitoring somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) when motor-evoked potentials (MEP) are not measurable. SETTING: The Neuro-Oncology Clinic, National Cancer Center, Korea. METHODS: Patients (n=101) with IDEM or epidural metastatic spinal tumors at the cord level underwent surgeries monitored with SSEP and/or MEP. The monitoring rate was defined as negative when MEP or SSEP could not be measured after reversal of the neuromuscular block under general anesthesia. Positive IOM changes included more than a 50% change in the MEP or SSEP amplitude and more than a 10% delay in SSEP latency. RESULTS: MEP was measurable in 73% of patients. The MEP monitoring rate in patients with motor power grades of 3 or less was 39%, which was lower than that of SSEP (83%). The sensitivity, specificity and predictability of MEP for motor changes were 93, 90 and 91%, respectively. Conversely, the sensitivity, specificity and predictability of SSEP were 62, 97 and 89%, respectively. In patients in whom MEP was not measurable (n=24), SSEP was monitored with a predictability of 83%. CONCLUSION: In cases of extramedullary spinal tumors, MEP shows a higher sensitivity than SSEP does. However, the monitoring rate of MEP in non-ambulatory patients was lower than that of SSEP. In those cases, SSEP can be useful to monitor for postoperative neurological deficits.
STUDY DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the monitoring rate, sensitivity and specificity of intraoperative monitoring (IOM) during removal of intradural extramedullary (IDEM) or epidural metastatic spinal tumors. Also, to assess the efficacy of monitoring somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) when motor-evoked potentials (MEP) are not measurable. SETTING: The Neuro-Oncology Clinic, National Cancer Center, Korea. METHODS:Patients (n=101) with IDEM or epidural metastatic spinal tumors at the cord level underwent surgeries monitored with SSEP and/or MEP. The monitoring rate was defined as negative when MEP or SSEP could not be measured after reversal of the neuromuscular block under general anesthesia. Positive IOM changes included more than a 50% change in the MEP or SSEP amplitude and more than a 10% delay in SSEP latency. RESULTS: MEP was measurable in 73% of patients. The MEP monitoring rate in patients with motor power grades of 3 or less was 39%, which was lower than that of SSEP (83%). The sensitivity, specificity and predictability of MEP for motor changes were 93, 90 and 91%, respectively. Conversely, the sensitivity, specificity and predictability of SSEP were 62, 97 and 89%, respectively. In patients in whom MEP was not measurable (n=24), SSEP was monitored with a predictability of 83%. CONCLUSION: In cases of extramedullary spinal tumors, MEP shows a higher sensitivity than SSEP does. However, the monitoring rate of MEP in non-ambulatory patients was lower than that of SSEP. In those cases, SSEP can be useful to monitor for postoperative neurological deficits.
Authors: Theodoros Kombos; Olaf Suess; Carlos Da Silva; Oczan Ciklatekerlio; Vera Nobis; Mario Brock Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Andres A Gonzalez; Dhiraj Jeyanandarajan; Chris Hansen; Gabriel Zada; Patrick C Hsieh Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Guillermo Paradiso; Gabriel Y F Lee; Roger Sarjeant; Ly Hoang; Eric M Massicotte; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: R P Lesser; P Raudzens; H Lüders; M R Nuwer; W D Goldie; H H Morris; D S Dinner; G Klem; J F Hahn; A G Shetter Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1986-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Nasir A Quraishi; Stephen J Lewis; Michael O Kelleher; Roger Sarjeant; Yoga R Rampersaud; Michael G Fehlings Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Dougho Park; Byung Hee Kim; Sang Eok Lee; Ji Kang Park; Jae Man Cho; Heum Dai Kwon; Su Yun Lee Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.003