Literature DB >> 30726520

Trending algorithm discriminates hemodynamic from injury related TcMEP amplitude loss.

Paul Jasiukaitis1, Russ Lyon2.   

Abstract

Jasiukaitis and Lyon (J Clin Monit Comput, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0181-9, 2018) described an motor evoked potential (MEP)amplitude trending system to detect MEP amplitude loss against a background of MEP variability. They found that the end of case value of a running R2 triggered by a set MEP amplitude loss criterion appeared to discriminate new injury from non-injury in a small sample of three patients. The present study examines the predictive capability of the running R2 in a larger sample of patients (21 injured and 19 non-injured). It also varies the amplitude loss criterion (50%, 65% and 80%) for triggering the running R2 and the numbers of points used in the moving linear regression (8, 12 and 16). 40 patients who had undergone correction for lumbar deformity were retrospectively examined. 21 of these woke up with a newly acquired radicular injury, 19 did not but were characterized by hypovolemic hemorrhage. All 40 patients had sufficient MEP amplitude loss sometime during their procedure to cause the monitoring specialist to report this to the surgeon and anesthesia. End-of-case running R2s were significantly larger in the injury group. Using an 80% amplitude loss criterion to trigger the running R2 proved to be too stringent, causing reduced sensitivity. The running R2 appeared to have equivalent sensitivity to that of conventional MEP amplitude loss ratios, but superior specificity within this monitoring challenged sample. The different number of points for the moving regressions did not have any significant effect. End-of-case R2 values greater than 60% appeared to be highly predictive of new post-operative deficit, while values less than 40% appeared to insure no new deficit. The proposed trending system can discriminate injury from non-injury outcomes when compressive radicular injury during correction for lumbar deformity is involved. This discrimination appears to be successful even when MEP amplitude loss for non-iatrogenic reasons (i.e., hemorrhage) is also occurring.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hemodynamic stress from radicular injury; Intraoperative motor evoked potential changes; Successful discrimination

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30726520     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-019-00272-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  15 in total

Review 1.  Criteria for transcranial electrical motor evoked potential monitoring during spinal deformity surgery A review and discussion of the literature.

Authors:  D-D Langeloo; H-L Journée; M de Kleuver; J A Grotenhuis
Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin       Date:  2007-09-05       Impact factor: 3.734

2.  Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Alarm Criteria to Predict Foot Drop Injury During Lumbosacral Surgery.

Authors:  Arvydas Tamkus; Kent S Rice; Gregory Hoffman
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Utility of motor evoked potentials for intraoperative nerve root monitoring.

Authors:  David B Macdonald; Bent Stigsby; Iftetah Al Homoud; Tariq Abalkhail; Amal Mokeem
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.177

4.  How to make the best use of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring? Experience in 1162 consecutive spinal deformity surgical procedures.

Authors:  Qianyu Zhuang; Shujie Wang; Jianguo Zhang; Hong Zhao; Yipeng Wang; Ye Tian; Yu Zhao; Shugang Li; Xisheng Weng; Guixing Qiu; Jianxiong Shen
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Progressive suppression of motor evoked potentials during general anesthesia: the phenomenon of "anesthetic fade".

Authors:  Russ Lyon; John Feiner; Jeremy A Lieberman
Journal:  J Neurosurg Anesthesiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 3.956

6.  Lumbar nerve root palsy after adult spinal deformity surgery.

Authors:  Dhruv B Pateder; John P Kostuik
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 7.  Iatrogenic neurologic deficit after lumbar spine surgery: A review.

Authors:  George M Ghobrial; Kim A Williams; Paul Arnold; Michael Fehlings; James S Harrop
Journal:  Clin Neurol Neurosurg       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 1.876

8.  Neurologic complications of lumbar pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a 10-year assessment.

Authors:  Jacob M Buchowski; Keith H Bridwell; Lawrence G Lenke; Craig A Kuhns; Ronald A Lehman; Youngjung J Kim; David Stewart; Chris Baldus
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy.

Authors:  David H Kim; Jason Zaremski; Brian Kwon; Louis Jenis; Eric Woodard; Robert Bode; Robert J Banco
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery.

Authors:  Daniel M Schwartz; Joshua D Auerbach; John P Dormans; John Flynn; Denis S Drummond; J Andrew Bowe; Samuel Laufer; Suken A Shah; J Richard Bowen; Peter D Pizzutillo; Kristofer J Jones; Denis S Drummond
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 5.284

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.