| Literature DB >> 31157143 |
Stephen J Lewis1,2, Ian H Y Wong1, Samuel Strantzas1, Laura M Holmes1, Ian Vreugdenhil1, Hailey Bensky1, Christopher J Nielsen1, Reinhard Zeller1, David E Lebel1, Marinus de Kleuver2, Niccole Germscheid2, Ahmet Alanay2, Sigurd Berven2, Kenneth M C Cheung2, Manabu Ito2, David W Polly2, Christopher I Shaffrey2, Yong Qiu2, Lawrence G Lenke2.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: Brown-Sequard syndrome; anemia; anterior cord syndrome; incomplete spinal cord injuries; motor evoked potentials; neuromonitoring; pediatric; perfusion; scoliosis; transfusion
Year: 2019 PMID: 31157143 PMCID: PMC6512195 DOI: 10.1177/2192568219836993
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Figure 1.Example of left (blue tracing) unilateral motor-evoked potential (MEP) signal drop following trauma to the spinal cord from a Kerrison rongeur during decompression for a posterior column osteotomy. Consistent improvement in signal occurred within 5 minutes with full return occurring within 30 minutes.
Demographic, Radiographic, and Surgical Features of the Study Patients With Comparison of Cases With and Without MEP Changes.
| All (n = 97) | No MEP Change (n = 70) | MEP Change (n = 27) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean ± SD | 14.9 ± 1.7 | 15.1 ± 1.6 | 14.2 ± 1.8 | .04 |
| Sex, male:female, n | 26:71 | 21:49 | 5:22 | .319 |
| Primary-Revision, n | 95-2 | 70-0 | 25-2 | .07 |
| Diagnosis, n (%) | ||||
| Idiopathic | 85 (87.6) | 60 (85.7) | 25 (92.6) | .51 |
| Syndromic | 12 (12.4) | 10 (14.3) | 2 (7.4) | .50 |
| Maximum coronal Cobb angle, deg, mean ± SD | 78.8 ± 17.3 | 76.6 ± 15.9 | 84.4 ± 19.8 | .07 |
| Coronal balance, mm, mean ± SD | 16.7 ± 11.9 | 17.2 ± 12.4 | 15.3 ± 10.4 | .47 |
| Coronal DAR, deg/level, mean ± SD | 13.2 ± 4.3 | 12.7 ± 3.5 | 14.6 ± 5.8 | .13 |
| Maximum sagittal Cobb angle, deg, mean ± SD | 39.4 ± 21.2 | 39.7 ± 20.4 | 38.7 ± 23.7 | .85 |
| Sagittal balance, mm, mean ± SD | 19.3 ± 29.8 | 20.8 ± 26.8 | 15.4 ± 36.6 | .49 |
| Lower extremity motor score, mean ± SD | 50 ± 0 | 50 ± 0 | 50 ± 0 | 1 |
| Levels fused, mean ± SD | 12.9 ± 1.6 | 12.7 ± 1.7 | 13.4 ± 1.2 | .02 |
| Intraoperative traction, n (%) | 44 (45.4) | 33 (47.1) | 11 (40.7) | .65 |
| Osteotomy | ||||
| PCO, n (%) | 32 (33.0) | 18 (25.7) | 14 (51.9) | .02 |
| Numbera of PCOs (mean) | 4.1 ± 1.4 | 3.6 ± 1.1 | 4.8 ± 1.5 | .11 |
Abbreviations: MEP, motor-evoked potential; DAR, deformity angle ratio; PCO, posterior column osteotomy.
a For those undergoing osteotomies.
Motor-Evoked Potential (MEP) Changes (n = 39).
| Type of MEP Change | Unilateral (n = 16) | Bilateral (n = 23) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Partial MEP loss, n (%) | 13 (81.2) | 13 (56.5) | .17 |
| Complete MEP loss, n (%) | 3 (18.8) | 10 (43.5) | .17 |
| Associated SSEP loss, n (%) | 2 (12.5) | 2 (8.7) | 1 |
| Time from start of surgery, min, mean ± SD | 219.1 ± 87.1 | 254.5 ± 133.3 | .33 |
|
| |||
| Traction related | 0 | 6 | .06 |
| Pre-incision | 0 | 2 | .5 |
| Pre-implant placement | 0 | 2 | .5 |
| Post rod insertion | 0 | 2 | .5 |
| Implant insertion | 3 | 0 | .06 |
| Pedicle screw | 2 | 0 | .16 |
| Sublaminar hook | 1 | 0 | .41 |
| Decompression for osteotomy | 6 | 0 | .003 |
| Post rod insertion | 4 | 17 | .004 |
| Osteotomy closure | 1 | 0 | .41 |
| Correction maneuver | 1 | 0 | .41 |
| Bone graft placement | 1 | 0 | .41 |
|
| |||
| Mean arterial pressure, mm Hg, mean ± SD | 77.1 ± 9.8 | 67.6 ± 11.6 | .009 |
| Action taken, n | |||
| Increase blood pressure | 5 | 15 | .54 |
| Anesthesia adjusted | 1 | 6 | .21 |
| Steroids administered | 1 | 3 | .63 |
| Transfused | 1 | 8 | .056 |
| Traction weight adjusted | 3 | 8 | .47 |
| Implant removed/adjusted | 1 | 6 | .21 |
| Rod removed | 0 | 2 | .5 |
| Osteotomy opened | 1 | 0 | .41 |
| Correct kyphosis | 1 | 0 | .41 |
| None | 4 | 0 | .02 |
| Recovery time to improved signal, min | |||
| 0-5 | 8 | 8 | .51 |
| 5-10 | 7 | 7 | .5 |
| 10-20 | 1 | 4 | .63 |
| 20-60 | 0 | 4 | .13 |
| >60 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Abbreviation: SSEP, somatosensory-evoked potential.
Figure 2.Bilateral MEP signal loss following rod insertion for severe scoliosis. Despite resuscitation attempts with increasing the mean arterial blood pressure, changes persisted until the rods were removed. Following blood transfusion, the rods were successfully reinserted with maintenance of the MEP signal.
Final Recorded MEP signal at Time of Closure Relative to the Type of MEP Signal Loss Observed During Surgery.
| MEP Signal at Closure | Single Unilateral (n = 9) | Multiple Unilateral (n = 1) | Single Bilateral (n = 9) | Multiple Bilateral (n = 5) | Combination Unilateral/Bilateral (n = 3) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0% of baseline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 25% of baseline | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 50% of baseline | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 75% of baseline | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 100% of baseline | 8 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 1 |
Abbreviation: MEP, motor-evoked potential.
Figure 3.Patient in Figure 2 following a T2 to L1 posterior fusion with posterior column osteotomies at T6-7, T7-8, T8-9, T9-10, T10-11. Complete signal loss occurred following rod insertion, which resolved following rod removal and transfusion. Successful correction was achieved without compromising the final correction following appropriate management of the intraoperative neuromonitoring changes.