| Literature DB >> 33936304 |
Gokhan Canaz1, Huseyin Canaz2, Ezgi T Erdogan3, Ibrahim Alatas2, Erhan Emel1, Zeliha Matur4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Myelomeningocele is the most severe and the most frequent form of spina bifida. Most of the myelomeningocele patients undergo operations in new-born age. In terms of life quality and rehabilitation, follow-up's of these patients in the growth and development period after the operation is critical. In our study, our aim is to emphasize the correlation of SEP results with MRI results and clinical features of the myelomeningocele patients.Entities:
Keywords: Ambulation; myelomeningocele; somatosensory evoked potentials; spina bifida
Year: 2021 PMID: 33936304 PMCID: PMC8078630 DOI: 10.4103/jpn.JPN_77_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pediatr Neurosci ISSN: 1817-1745
Study population
| Age (range) | 8.22 (3–17) |
|---|---|
| 0.5 |
Figure 1Stimulation and record zones with an example of the recorded potentials
Figure 2(A) 6-year-old male patient. Latencies of cortical potentials are longer than normal values on left (right: 37.6ms, left: 55.4ms) (Group 2). (B) 7-year-old male patient. Latencies of cortical potentials are bilaterally prolonged (right: 60.1ms, left: 58.6ms) (Group 3). (C) 14-year-old female patient. The cortical potentials are lost on left, and lumbar potentials are bilaterally lost. On the right, the amplitude of the cortical potentials are low (1 µV) and latency is slightly prolonged (43ms) (Group 4)
The correlation between ambulation levels and SEP results
| SEP result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Unilat. prolonged | Bilat. prolonged | Unilat. lost | Bilat. lost | |||||
| Non-ambulatory | 4 | 36 | 0.46 | 0.005* | |||||
| Non-functional | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Household ambulator | 2 | 3 | |||||||
| Community ambulatory | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | ||||
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level according to Spearman test (2-tailed)
The correlation between clinical functional lesion levels and SEP results
| SEP result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Unilat. prolonged | Bilat. prolonged | Unilat. lost | Bilat. lost | |||||
| Thoracal | 2 | 36 | 0.477 | 0.003* | |||||
| High lumbar | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| Mid lumbar | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Low lumbar | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Sacral | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Normal | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level according to Spearman test (2-tailed)
The correlation between fusion defect levels and SEP results
| SEP result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Unilat. prolonged | Bilat. prolonged | Unilat. lost | Bilat. lost | |||||
| Sacral | 2 | 1 | 36 | –0.528 | 0.002* | ||||
| Low lumbar | 6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| High lumbar | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||||
| Thoracal | 1 | 6 | |||||||
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level according to Spearman test (2-tailed)
Correlations with lumbar SEP results
| SEP—lumbar results | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Prolonged | Lost | |||||
| Non-ambulatory | 0 | 0 | 3 | 31* | 0.196 | 0.291 | |
| Non-functional | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Household ambulator | 0 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| Community ambulatory | 2 | 3 | 16 | ||||
| Thoracal | 0 | 0 | 1 | 31* | 0.443 | 0.013** | |
| High lumbar | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||||
| Mid lumbar | 0 | 1 | 10 | ||||
| Low lumbar | 1 | 0 | 6 | ||||
| Sacral | 0 | 3 | 1 | ||||
| Normal | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||||
| Sacral | 0 | 0 | 4 | 31* | –0.085 | 0.651 | |
| Low lumbar | 1 | 4 | 11 | ||||
| High lumbar | 1 | 0 | 5 | ||||
| Thoracal | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||||
*In 5 patient, lumbar responses could not be received due to artefacts
**Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level according to Spearman test (2-tailed)
Patients’ MRI findings, SEP results and ambulation levels
| Patients | Anomalies detected on MRI | SEP results | Ambulation levels |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | HC | 4 | 1 |
| 2 | SM | 5 | 4 |
| 3 | SM + TC | 4 | 1 |
| 4 | CH | 5 | 1 |
| 5 | SM + TC | 5 | 2 |
| 6 | 5 | 1 | |
| 7 | CH + SM + TC | 5 | 4 |
| 8 | HC | 5 | 2 |
| 9 | HC | 5 | 3 |
| 10 | 1 | 1 | |
| 11 | SM | 1 | 2 |
| 12 | SM + TC + DM | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | SM + DM + TC | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | SM + TC + CH + HC | 3 | 1 |
| 15 | SM + TC | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | SM + DM | 5 | 1 |
| 17 | CH + SM + DM + TC | 4 | 3 |
| 18 | TC + SM + HC | 5 | 4 |
| 19 | CH + SM + TC | 2 | 1 |
| 20 | SM + TC | 1 | 1 |
| 21 | SM + TC | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | 1 | 1 | |
| 23 | SM + DM + TC | 4 | 1 |
| 24 | SM + TC + HC | 5 | 4 |
| 25 | HC | 3 | 1 |
| 26 | SM + LM + TC + HC | 4 | 1 |
| 27 | 5 | 2 | |
| 28 | TC | 1 | 1 |
| 29 | SM + TC | 4 | 1 |
| 30 | 1 | 1 | |
| 31 | 1 | 1 | |
| 32 | TC | 5 | 1 |
| 33 | HC | 5 | 1 |
| 34 | SM + TC + LM | 2 | 1 |
| 35 | 1 | 2 | |
| 36 | SM + TC | 5 | 1 |
HC = hydrocephalus, CH = Chiari anomaly, TC = tethered cord, SM = syringomyelia, DM = diastomyelia, LM = lipoma
Comparison of tethered cord presence with SEP results, ambulation levels and functional lesion levels, using Fisher’s test
| SEP results | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal | Unilat. prolonged | Bilat. prolonged | Unilat. lost | Bilat. lost | |||||
| + | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 36 | 0.710 | ||
| – | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 | ||||
| Community ambulatory | Household ambulatory | Non-functional ambulatory | Non-ambulatory | ||||||
| + | 14 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 36 | 0.213 | |||
| – | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Normal | Sacral | Low lumbar | Mid lumbar | High lumbar | Thoracal | ||||
| + | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 36 | 0.748 | |
| 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 0 | ||||
Figure 3(A) 16-year-old female patient. She was operated for MMC closure in the first 48h of life. She has normal posterior tibial nerve SEP results and no lower extremity deficits. In MRI, TC findings and SM cyst are present. (B) 5-year-old female patient. She was operated for sacral MMC on the eighth day of life. She was community ambulatory and had no lower extremity deficit. Posterior tibial nerve SEP results are normal. In MRI, evident low conus and TC are present. (C) 7-year-old male patient. He was operated for high lumbar MMC on the 40th day of life. He is non-ambulatory and posterior tibial nerve SEP is bilaterally lost. In MRI, distinct tethering is visible on L1-2-3 levels. The patient has urinary incontinence, and increased bladder volume is visible