Literature DB >> 35290626

Development of consensus-based best practice guidelines for response to intraoperative neuromonitoring events in high-risk spinal deformity surgery.

Lawrence G Lenke1,2, Adam N Fano3, Rajiv R Iyer3, Hiroko Matsumoto4,5, Daniel J Sucato6, Amer F Samdani7, Justin S Smith8, Munish C Gupta9, Michael P Kelly9, Han Jo Kim10, Daniel M Sciubba11, Samuel K Cho12, David W Polly13, Oheneba Boachie-Adjei14, Stephen J Lewis15, Peter D Angevine2,16, Michael G Vitale3,17.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To expand on previously described intraoperative aids by developing consensus-based best practice guidelines to optimize the approach to intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) events associated with "high-risk" spinal deformity surgery.
METHODS: Consensus was established among a group of experienced spinal deformity surgeons by way of the Delphi method. Through a series of iterative surveys and a final virtual consensus meeting, participants expressed their agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree) with various items. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement ("strongly agree" or "agree"). Near-consensus was defined as ≥ 60% but < 80%. Equipoise was ≥ 20% but < 60%, and consensus to exclude was < 20%.
RESULTS: 15 out of 15 (100%) invited surgeons agreed to participate. Final consensus supported inclusion of 105 items (53 in Response Algorithm, 13 in Ongoing Consideration of Etiology, 31 in Real-Time Data Scenarios, 8 in Patterns of IONM Loss), which were organized into a final set of best practice guidelines.
CONCLUSION: Detailed consensus-based best practice guidelines and aids were successfully created with the intention to help organize and direct the surgical team in exploring and responding to neurological complications during high-risk spinal deformity surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Scoliosis Research Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Best practice guideline; Expert consensus; High-risk; Intraoperative neuromonitoring; Neurological deficit; Spinal deformity

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35290626     DOI: 10.1007/s43390-022-00485-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine Deform        ISSN: 2212-134X


  4 in total

1.  Are Rib Versus Spine Anchors Protective Against Breakage of Growing Rods?

Authors:  Kent T Yamaguchi; David L Skaggs; Shaun Mansour; Karen S Myung; Muharram Yazici; Charles Johnston; George Thompson; Paul Sponseller; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Michael G Vitale
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2014-10-27

2.  Best Practices in Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Spine Deformity Surgery: Development of an Intraoperative Checklist to Optimize Response.

Authors:  Michael G Vitale; David L Skaggs; Gregory I Pace; Margaret L Wright; Hiroko Matsumoto; Richard C E Anderson; Douglas L Brockmeyer; John P Dormans; John B Emans; Mark A Erickson; John M Flynn; Michael P Glotzbecker; Kamal N Ibrahim; Stephen J Lewis; Scott J Luhmann; Anil Mendiratta; B Stephens Richards; James O Sanders; Suken A Shah; John T Smith; Kit M Song; Paul D Sponseller; Daniel J Sucato; David P Roye; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2014-08-27

3.  Overview of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring During Spine Surgery.

Authors:  Parastou Shilian; Gabriel Zada; Aaron C Kim; Andres A Gonzalez
Journal:  J Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 2.177

4.  A novel MRI-based classification of spinal cord shape and CSF presence at the curve apex to assess risk of intraoperative neuromonitoring data loss with thoracic spinal deformity correction.

Authors:  J Alex Sielatycki; Meghan Cerpa; Griffin Baum; Martin Pham; Earl Thuet; Ronald A Lehman; Lawrence G Lenke
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2020-03-23
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.