| Literature DB >> 32345957 |
Xiaosong Yang1, Xiao Liu1, Xiaoguang Liu1, Miao Yu1, Ling Jiang2, Yue Ma1, Liyuan Tao3, Zhongjun Liu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Circumferential decompression (CD) is an essential treatment option for myelopathy associated with thoracic-ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (T-OPLL) when laminectomy cannot achieve sufficient ventral decompression. Although intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is widely used, the operation has a relatively high risk. This study is the first to describe the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to evaluate the spinal cord blood flow (SCBF) during thoracic spine surgery in humans. The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between intraoperative CEUS and IONM during CD. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty-eight T-OPLL patients who received CD from 2007 to 2014 were reviewed. All patients underwent IONM. CEUS was used on the following 2 occasions on 18 patients to evaluate SCBF: the first measurement was performed after laminectomy and the second after ventral decompression. Outcomes were evaluated by the Hirabayashi recovery rate (HRR). RESULTS The overall HRR of all patients was 56.7%. Regarding CEUS, the HRR was 20.0% in Group A (SCBF decreased) and 63.6% in Group B (SCBF increased), indicating a significantly poorer neurological outcome in Group A (P<0.01). Regarding IONM, the HRR did not significantly differ between Groups C (no meaningful change in potential), D (potential changed up to alert criteria), and E (potential improved). CONCLUSIONS IONM is relatively effective in detecting impending spinal cord dysfunction. Intraoperative CEUS is a safe and reliable method for assessing SCBF changes, which may be used as a supplement to IONM, thus reducing the incidence of false-negative results.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32345957 PMCID: PMC7204126 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.921129
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Summary of operations of Groups A and B.
| Case number | Sex | Age (years) | Diagnosis/levels | CD level | PD level | Ossification-kyphosis angle (°) | Blood loss (mL) | Operative time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 38 | OPLL/T9-11; OLF/T3-5 T11-12 | T9–11 | T9–11 | 31.2 | 1000 | 120 |
| 2 | M | 41 | OPLL/T3-5; OLF/T3-6 | T3–5 | T3–7 | 24.5 | 3600 | 425 |
| 3 | F | 48 | OPLL/C7-T5; OLF/T5-8 | T2–3 | T1–5 | 22.1 | 1500 | 270 |
| 4 | F | 43 | OPLL/C7-T6 | T1–3 | C6–T6 | 21.4 | 3500 | 350 |
| 5 | F | 51 | OPLL/C7-T3 | T1–2 | C7–T3 | 26.6 | 1000 | 300 |
| 6 | F | 62 | OPLL/T4-7; OLF/T9-12 | T5–6 | T4–8 | 25.5 | 2500 | 235 |
| 7 | M | 69 | OPLL/T1-2 | T1–2 | T1–3 | 29.2 | 900 | 230 |
| 8 | F | 59 | OPLL/T4-6; OLF/T3-4 | T5–7 | T3–7 | 24.1 | 2000 | 275 |
| 9 | M | 62 | OPLL/T4-8 | T5–6 | T4–8 | 21.8 | 2000 | 210 |
| 10 | M | 52 | OPLL/T10-11; OLF/T9-11 | T10–11 | T9–12 | 23.9 | 3000 | 250 |
| 11 | M | 47 | OPLL/T9-11; OLF/T2-12 | T6–8 | T5–9 | 20.6 | 1800 | 290 |
| 12 | F | 51 | OPLL/T2-4; OLF/T3-5 | T2–3 | T1–5 | 34.1 | 2000 | 380 |
| 13 | M | 46 | OPLL/T9-10; OLF/T9-10 | T9–10 | T9–11 | 20.9 | 1700 | 275 |
| 14 | F | 42 | OPLL/T1-7 | T2–3 | T1–7 | 23.4 | 200 | 110 |
| 15 | F | 64 | OPLL/T6-8; OLF/T2-12 | T6–7 | T5–10 | 22.1 | 3500 | 300 |
| 16 | F | 44 | OPLL/T5-10 | T8–10 | T5–12 | 21.2 | 2000 | 330 |
| 17 | F | 42 | OPLL/T4-6; OL/2-8 | T5–6 | T2–8 | 21.4 | 2000 | 285 |
| 18 | M | 54 | OPLL/T8-11 | T8–9 | T7–11 | 39.1 | 3900 | 325 |
M – male; F – female; OPLL – ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament; OLF – ossification of ligament flavum; CD – circumferential decompression; PD – laminectomy.
Figure 1(A–H) Time evolution of blood perfusion evaluated using microbubble contrast-enhanced ultrasound. From left to right: Images taken at 0, 6, 12, and 18 seconds after the appearance of microbubbles. Tissue perfusion can be evaluated in real time on the contrast-enhanced ultrasound image, where microvessels in the regions of interest (ROIs) appear as white regions with a stronger intensity. The upper and lower images were taken before and after decompression, respectively.
Figure 2The time-intensity curves of patient no. 18. Each curve has 3 phases. The first phase of the curve is flat, which corresponds to the period before the microbubbles arrive; in the second phase, the intensity of the reflected signal increases quickly and corresponds to the infusion; and in the third phase, as the microbubbles are eliminated, once the injection stops, the concentration of microbubbles begin to decrease, which leads to a progressive decrease of the curve. The area under this curve correlates with blood flow in the regions of interest, which reflects the total volume of spinal cord blood perfusion at the decompression position. The area is significantly larger after ventral decompression than before ventral decompression, which reflects increased spinal cord blood flow after ventral decompression.
Summary of operations of patients of different groups.
| Regarding CEUS | Regarding IONM | Patients with CEUS (n=18) | Patients with INOM but without CEUS (n=50) | P value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A (n=4) | Group B (n=14) | P value | Group C (n=44) | Group D (n=16) | Group E (n=8) | P value | ||||
| Age (years) | 49.0 | 51.4 | 0.721 | 52.4 | 53.6 | 53.0 | 0.566 | 50.8 | 53.8 | 0.205 |
| Sex (M: F) | 1: 3 | 7: 7 | 0.382 | 16: 28 | 3: 13 | 3: 5 | 0.402 | 8: 10 | 14: 36 | 0.201 |
| Levels of CD | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.574 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.572 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 0.157 |
| Levels of PD | 6.0 | 4.9 | 0.382 | 4.8 | 4.5 | 4.4 | 0.803 | 5.2 | 4.5 | 0.252 |
| Blood loss (mL) | 2625.0 | 1971.4 | 0.233 | 2038.8 | 2118.8 | 2175.0 | 0.629 | 275.6 | 269.0 | 0.329 |
| Operative time (min) | 290.0 | 271.4 | 0.798 | 265.8 | 300.4 | 238.8 | 0.017 | 2116.7 | 2053.4 | 0.522 |
| Presence of CSF | 1 | 5 | 0.593 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 0.426 | 6 | 13 | 0.552 |
CEUS – contrast-enhanced ultrasound; IONM – intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; M – male; F – female; CD – circumferential decompression; PD – laminectomy; CSF – cerebrospinal fluid leakage.
Intraoperative monitoring results and patients’ outcomes of Groups A and B.
| Case number | CEUS code | SSEP code | MEP code | Complications | Preoperative JOA score | Final JOA score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 4 | 10 |
| 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 5 | 11 |
| 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 1 | 3 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | PND | 5 | 7 |
| 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | No | 4 | 8 |
| 6 | 0 | 1 | 2 | No | 5 | 9 |
| 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 1 | 8 |
| 8 | 1 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 2 | 2 |
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | CSF | 3 | 9 |
| 10 | 1 | 2 | 2 | No | 5 | 6 |
| 11 | 0 | 2 | 2 | No | 4 | 9 |
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | CSF | 7 | 9 |
| 13 | 0 | 2 | 0 | CSF | 6 | 9 |
| 14 | 0 | 2 | 2 | No | 4 | 8 |
| 15 | 0 | 1 | 2 | CSF | 6 | 9 |
| 16 | 0 | 2 | 2 | CSF | 6 | 10 |
| 17 | 1 | 1 | 2 | PND, PE | 6 | 8 |
| 18 | 0 | 2 | 2 | No | 5 | 9 |
CEUS (contrast-enhanced ultrasound) code: 0=spinal cord blood flow increased; 1=spinal cord blood flow decreased; SSEP (somatosensory-evoked potentials) and MEP (motor-evoked potentials) code: 0=potential improved, 1=potential changed up to alert criteria, 2=no meaningful change in potential; JOA score – modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score; PE – pleural effusion; PND – postoperative neurological deterioration.
Neurological outcomes of different groups.
| Regarding CEUS | Regarding IONM | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A (n=4) | Group B (n=14) | P value | Group C (n=44) | Group D (n=16) | Group E (n=8) | P value | |
| Preoperative JOA score | 4.5 | 4.4 | 0.798 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 4.5 | 0.768 |
| Final JOA score | 5.8 | 8.6 | 0.008 | 7.9 | 8.1 | 9.1 | 0.428 |
| HRR (%) | 20.0 | 63.6 | 0.003 | 54.4 | 54.7 | 70.8 | 0.322 |
CEUS – contrast-enhanced ultrasound; IONM – intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring; JOA score – modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score; HRR – Hirabayashi recovery rate=(JOA score at follow-up–preoperative JOA score)/(11-preoperative JOA score)×100%.