| Literature DB >> 33023483 |
Zhengran Yu1, Kaiyuan Lin1, Jiacheng Chen1, Kuan-Hung Chen1, Wei Guo1, Yuhu Dai1, Yuguang Chen1, Xuenong Zou2, Xinsheng Peng3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dynamic somatosensory evoked potentials (DSSEP) can be used to disclose abnormalities of ascending sensory pathways at dynamic positions and diagnose cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). However, radiographic tests including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and dynamic X-ray are used much more widely in the management of CSM. Our study aims to clarify the correlations between several radiographic parameters and the DSSEP results, and further determine their reliability with clinical data.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical segmental instability; Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Dynamic X-ray; Dynamic-somatosensory-evoked potentials; Magnetic resonance imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33023483 PMCID: PMC7541238 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-020-01945-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Fig. 1DSSEP test illustration: Left: Cervical spine in neutral, 20° extension and 35° flexion positions. Right: DSSEP results of the left median nerve of this CSM patient. The latencies of N9, N13 and N20, amplitudes of N13 and N20 are shown in the figure
Fig. 2MRI measurements illustration. a: transverse spinal canal area (subarachnoid space); b: Transverse spinal cord area; c: Central_Ratio and Compression_Ratio are calculated as follows: Central_Ratio = CSD / TD, Compression_Ratio = SD / TD. (SD = sagittal spinal cord diameter, TD = transverse spinal cord diameter, CSD = Central sagittal diameter of the spinal cord); d: 1/4-Lateral_Compression_Ratio is calculated as follow: 1/4-Lateral_Compression_Ratio = (LQSD + RQSD) / 2TD. (RQSD = 1/4-lateral anteroposterior diameter on the right side, LQSD = 1/4-lateral anteroposterior diameter on the left side)
Summary of demographics and clinical data of 38 CSM patients
| Variable | Measurement |
|---|---|
| No. males | 21 (55.3%) |
| Mean age (yr) | 53.6 (range 22–82) |
| Preoperative clinical assessment | |
| mJOA score | 13.95 ± 2.01 (range 9–17) |
| Nurick grades | 2.61 ± 1.18 (range 1–4) |
| No. Hoffman sign | 24 (64.9%) |
| No. Leg hyperreflexia | 13 (35.1%) |
| No. Ataxia | 20 (52.6%) |
| 2-Year Postoperative clinical assessment | |
| mJOA score | 16.89 ± 2.44 (range 12–20) |
| Recovery rate | 45.6% ± 21.9% (range 0–80%) |
| Compression levels (n) at MRI | |
| Stenotic levels | C3/4 (15) |
| C4/5 (21) | |
| C5/6 (30) | |
| C6/7 (12) | |
| C7/T1 (1) | |
| Most stenotic level | C3/4 (4) |
| C4/5 (8) | |
| C5/6 (22) | |
| C6/7 (4) | |
| No. (%) undergoing each procedure | |
| Anterior | 27 (71.1%) |
| Posterior | 7 (18.4%) |
| Combined anterior-posterior | 4 (10.5%) |
Results of DSSEP findings in neutral and dynamic positions†
| Neutral | Extension | Flexion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N13 | N20 | N13 | N20 | N13 | N20 | |
| Latency (ms) | 13.2 ± 1.1 | 18.88 ± 1.09 | 13.25 ± 1.01 | 19.06 ± 1.01 | 13.14 ± 1.07 | 18.95 ± 1.07 |
| p_value ‡ | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.43 | 0.3 | ||
| Amplitude (uV) | 2.66 ± 1.42 | 2.7 ± 1.59 | 2.17 ± 1.29 | 2.53 ± 1.3 | 2.18 ± 1.59 | 2.56 ± 1.54 |
| p_value ‡ | 0.000017 *** | 0.29 | 0.0026 ** | 0.25 | ||
| Amplitude Ratio § | 0.72 ± 0.34 | 0.97 ± 0.29 | 0.73 ± 0.43 | 0.97 ± 0.29 | ||
| Absent waves(Left, Right) ¶ | 4 (4,4) | 0 | 8 (7,6) | 2 (1,2) | 10 (7,9) | 1 (1,1) |
** p_value< 0.01; *** p_value< 0.001
† For absent N13 or N20 waves, their latencies were excluded and amplitudes were set as the baseline value (0 mV) for statistical analysis
‡ The p_values were calculated with the student’s t-test by comparing the DSSEP value at dynamic (extension or flexion) position with neutral position
§ Each patients’ amplitude ratios were calculated with the following method: Amplitude Ratio = amplitude at dynamic (extension or flexion) position ÷ amplitude at neutral position
¶ The number of patients whose waves at either left or right side at specific position was lost. The number of absent waves at left and right sides are respectively listed in the bracket
Fig. 3Pearson correlations between the DSSEP N13 amplitude ratios and MRI measurements. The DSSEP N13 amplitude ratios were statistically correlated with the Compression_Ratio, Central_Ratio and 1/4-Lateral_Compression_Ratio at both extension and flexion, while there were no correlations between the DSSEP results and spinal cord sagittal diameter, spinal cord area or spinal cord/canal area ratio. * p_value< 0.05; ** p_value< 0.01; *** p_value< 0.001
Fig. 4a. Boxplots showing the ANOVA results of the four groups based on the Ax-CCM classification system. Differences between groups were analyzed with post hoc t-test when the ANOVA showed significant difference among groups. b. Student’s t-test results of patients’ N13_E or N_13F in “Stable” and “Unstable” groups based on dynamic X-ray studies. * p_value< 0.05; ** p_value< 0.01; *** p_value< 0.001
Fig. 5Correlations between radiographic measures and clinical data. * p_value< 0.05; ** p_value< 0.01; *** p_value< 0.001. † The mJOA and Nurick grades’ correlation with Compression_Ratio, Central_Ratio and 1/4-Lateral_Compression_Ratio were calculated with the Spearman method. ‡ The recovery rate’s correlation with Compression_Ratio, Central_Ratio and 1/4-Lateral_Compression_Ratio were calculated with the Pearson method