Literature DB >> 33489485

The Significance of Motor Evoked Potential Changes and Utility of Multimodality Intraoperative Monitoring in Spinal Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution.

Joseph N Frazzetta1, Ryan C Hofler2, William Adams1, Michael J Schneck2, G Alexander Jones2.   

Abstract

Objective The objective of the study is to identify specific population groups that may benefit from intraoperative motor evoked potentials (MEP) and to assess positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) changes during operation by correlating these with postoperative motor outcomes. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 1,043 consecutive patient cases undergoing spine surgery with and without intraoperative monitoring (IOM) at a single institution from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017. Demographic and clinical outcome data were collected at multiple time points. An MEP amplitude decrease of 50% or greater was correlated with a motor deficit for this study. Results On multivariate analysis, patients with coronary artery disease and who received IOM were more likely to experience no new deficit (p=0.047) than those who did not receive IOM. Additionally, patients with hyperlipidemia and coronary artery disease (CAD) were less likely than those without to experience no new deficit (p=0.001 and p=0.02, respectively). MEP accounted for 244 cases, of which 15 had alert MEP criteria but no deficit for a PPV of 21.05% at day 1 post-operation. Day 7-30 PPV declined to 14.29%, and by day 90, there was no association. Conclusion Among patients in our study with CAD, IOM use was associated with significantly better outcomes. Patients with higher intraoperative blood loss, hyperlipidemia, and those with CAD were at increased risk of new neurological deficit. The use of motor evoked potentials was associated with low sensitivity and low PPV.
Copyright © 2020, Frazzetta et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  intraoperative neuromonitoring; motor evoked potential; positive predictive value; spine surgery

Year:  2020        PMID: 33489485      PMCID: PMC7806190          DOI: 10.7759/cureus.12065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cureus        ISSN: 2168-8184


  15 in total

1.  Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

Authors:  Vincent C Traynelis; Kingsley O Abode-Iyamah; Katie M Leick; Sarah M Bender; Jeremy D W Greenlee
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2011-11-11

2.  Failure of Intraoperative Monitoring to Detect Postoperative Neurologic Deficits: A 25-year Experience in 12,375 Spinal Surgeries.

Authors:  Barry L Raynor; Anne M Padberg; Lawrence G Lenke; Keith H Bridwell; K Daniel Riew; Jacob M Buchowski; Scott J Luhmann
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist.

Authors:  Rishi R Lall; Rohan R Lall; Jason S Hauptman; Carlos Munoz; George R Cybulski; Tyler Koski; Aruna Ganju; Richard G Fessler; Zachary A Smith
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 4.  Intraoperative Monitoring: Recent Advances in Motor Evoked Potentials.

Authors:  Antoun Koht; Tod B Sloan
Journal:  Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2016-09

Review 5.  Intraoperative neurophysiological mapping and monitoring in spinal tumor surgery: sirens or indispensable tools?

Authors:  Antonino Scibilia; Carmen Terranova; Vincenzo Rizzo; Giovanni Raffa; Adolfo Morelli; Felice Esposito; Raffaella Mallamace; Gaetano Buda; Alfredo Conti; Angelo Quartarone; Antonino Germanò
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.047

Review 6.  The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference?

Authors:  Michael G Fehlings; Darrel S Brodke; Daniel C Norvell; Joseph R Dettori
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Surgical results of intramedullary spinal cord tumor with spinal cord monitoring to guide extent of resection.

Authors:  Yukihiro Matsuyama; Yoshihito Sakai; Yoshito Katayama; Shiro Imagama; Zenya Ito; Norimitsu Wakao; Koji Sato; Mitsuhiro Kamiya; Yasutsugu Yukawa; Tokumi Kanemura; Makoto Yanase; Naoki Ishiguro
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2009-05

8.  Electrophysiological monitoring during surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy and radiculopathy.

Authors:  Daniel K Resnick; Paul A Anderson; Michael G Kaiser; Michael W Groff; Robert F Heary; Langston T Holly; Praveen V Mummaneni; Timothy C Ryken; Tanvir F Choudhri; Edward J Vresilovic; Paul G Matz
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2009-08

9.  Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring for Lumbar Intradural Schwannomas: Does It Affect Clinical Outcome?

Authors:  Serdar Kahraman; Selcuk Gocmen; Meltem Hale Alpsan Gokmen; Gokhan Acka; Serhat Pusat
Journal:  World Neurosurg       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 2.104

10.  Predicting Perioperative Complications in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery Using a Simple Sliding Scale.

Authors:  Go Yoshida; Tomohiko Hasegawa; Yu Yamato; Sho Kobayashi; Shin Oe; Tomohiro Banno; Yuuki Mihara; Hideyuki Arima; Hiroki Ushirozako; Tatsuya Yasuda; Daisuke Togawa; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.