| Literature DB >> 35321685 |
Zhengran Yu1, Jiacheng Chen1, Xing Cheng1, Dingxiang Xie2, Yuguang Chen1, Xuenong Zou3, Xinsheng Peng4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical extension and flexion are presumably harmful to patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) because they worsen medullary compression visible on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Dynamic somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) are an objective tool to measure the electrophysiological function of the spinal cord at different neck positions. In contrast to previous hypotheses, a considerable proportion of patients with DCM present improved SSEPs upon extension and flexion compared to a neutral position.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Improvement upon extension or flexion; Relevant factors; Somatosensory evoked potential; Surgical prognosis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35321685 PMCID: PMC8941810 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-022-02641-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Fig. 1DSSEPs results from a 51-year-old male in the EI/FI group. The DSSEPs were performed at cervical neutral (A), 20° extension (B) and 35° flexion (C) positions for a patient. The latencies of N9, N13 and N20 waves and the amplitudes of N13 and N20 waves are shown in the figure. The patient’s DSSEP N13 amplitude improved by 58.1 and 20.7% at extension and flexion positions respectively compared to the neutral position, meeting the criteria for entering both EI and FI groups (> 20%)
Fig. 2A Cervical alignment types (modified Toyama method [16]): A line connecting the midpoints of the inferior margin of C2 and the superior margin of C7 was constructed. Lordotic group: all centroids are anterior to the line and the distance between at least one centroid and the line is ≥2 mm; Straight group: the distance between the line and each centroid is less than 2 mm; Sigmoid group: some centroids are anterior to and some posterior to the line and the distance between the line and at least one centroid is ≥2 mm; Kyphotic group: all the centroids are posterior to the line and the distance between at least one centroid and the line is ≥2 mm. B The distribution of patients with DCM presenting different changes in DSSEPs in each cervical alignment type
Comparison of each group with respect to demographic, clinical, and radiographic features
| Group | DSSEP change upon extension | DSSEP change upon flexion | Statistical method | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extension-Improved (EI) | Extension-Non-improved (EN) | P | Flexion-Improved (FI) | Flexion-Non-improved (FN) | P | ||
| No.(%) | 9 (18.4%) | 40 (81.6%) | 11 (22.4%) | 38 (77.6%) | |||
| Sex male (female) | 3 (6) | 25 (15) | 0.221 | 5 (6) | 23 (15) | 0.587 | Chi-square |
| Age (mean ± SD) | 58.56 ± 12.77 | 55.2 ± 11.27 | 0.445 | 59.91 ± 10.88 | 54.63 ± 11.57 | 0.193 | T-test |
| Preoperative Clinical Assessments | |||||||
| CSM disease duration (months) | 11.44 ± 10.57 | 30.28 ± 29.30 | 0.024* | 15.82 ± 16.79 | 30.01 ± 29.49 | 0.142 | T-test |
| Gait impairment Yes (No) | 4 (5) | 22 (18) | 0.295 | 8 (3) | 18 (20) | 0.254 | Chi-square |
| Upper limb weakness Yes (No) | 4 (5) | 22 (18) | 0.719 | 6 (5) | 20 (18) | 1 | Chi-square |
| Hoffmann sign (Yes/No) | 6 (3) | 12 (28) | 0.425 | 8 (3) | 16 (22) | 0.148 | Chi-square |
| Preoperative mJOA score | 14.56 ± 1.50 | 14.9 ± 1.83 | 0.565 | 14.09 ± 1.50 | 15.05 ± 1.79 | 0.119 | T-test |
| Preoperative Radiological Assessments | |||||||
| Cervical Spondylolisthesis (Non/Anterolisthesis/Retrolisthesis) | 7/0/2 | 22/2/16 | 0.422 | 7/0/4 | 22/2/14 | 0.731 | Chi-square |
| Cervical alignment (Lordosis/Straight/ Sigmoid/Kyphosis) | 1/4/4/0 | 16/9/3/12 | 0.005** | 3/3/3/2 | 14/10/4/10 | 0.545 | Chi-square |
| Ligamentum flavum hypertrophy (Yes/No) | 3 (6) | 27 (13) | 0.128 | 7 (4) | 23 (15) | 1 | Chi-square |
| Intramedullary T2WI hyperintensity (Yes/No) | 4 (5) | 30 (10) | 0.163 | 7 (4) | 27 (11) | 0.922 | Chi-square |
| No. Involved segments (mean ± SD) | 1.56 ± 0.68 | 2.95 ± 1.09 | < 0.001*** | 2.27 ± 1.05 | 2.82 ± 1.17 | 0.269 | Kruskal-Wallis |
| Disc degeneration grade (mean ± SD) | 3.56 ± 1.17 | 4.13 ± 0.90 | 0.182 | 3.91 ± 1.08 | 4.05 ± 0.94 | 0.752 | Kruskal-Wallis |
| Mühle stenosis grade (mean ± SD) | 2.22 ± 0.79 | 2.2 ± 0.75 | 0.938 | 2.64 ± 0.64 | 2.08 ± 0.74 | 0.031* | Kruskal-Wallis |
| No. patients undergoing each surgical procedure | |||||||
| Anterior/Posterior/ Combined | 9/0/0 | 29/7/4 | 0.203 | 8/1/2 | 30/6/2 | 0.358 | Chi-square |
| One-year Postoperative Clinical Assessment | |||||||
| mJOA score | 17.67 ± 1.41 | 16.65 ± 2.15 | 0.191 | 17 ± 2.04 | 16.79 ± 2.08 | 0.773 | T-test |
| ΔmJOA score | 3.11 ± 0.57 | 1.75 ± 0.8 | < 0.001*** | 2.91 ± 0.79 | 1.74 ± 0.78 | < 0.001*** | T-test |
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
DSSEP dynamic somatosensory evoked potential
Chi-square and primary binary logistic regression analysis of dichotomous criteria for DSSEP improvement upon extension and flexion
| DSSEP change upon extension | |||||||
| EI Group Yes (No) | EN Group Yes (No) | χ2 | Logit Coefficient B | Standard Error | Logit | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
| Disease Duration ≤6 months | 6 (3) | 9 (31) | 0.028* | 1.93 | 0.802 | 0.016† | 6.889 (1.43–33.182) |
| Stenotic segment number ≤ 2 | 8 (1) | 14 (26) | 0.0103* | 2.698 | 1.111 | 0.015† | 14.857 (1.683–131.171) |
| Straight or sigmoid alignment | 8 (1) | 12 (28) | 0.004** | 2.927 | 1.115 | 0.009† | 18.667 (2.097–166.139) |
| Disc degeneration grade ≤ 3 | 5 (4) | 10 (30) | 0.163 | 1.322 | 0.764 | 0.084† | 0.267 (0.06–1.191) |
| Absence of LFH | 6 (3) | 13 (27) | 0.128 | 1.424 | 0.784 | 0.069† | 0.241 (0.052–1.118) |
| Absence of IHI | 5 (4) | 10 (30) | 0.163 | 1.322 | 0.764 | 0.084† | 0.267 (0.06–1.191) |
| DSSEP change upon flexion | |||||||
| FI Group Yes (No) | FN Group Yes (No) | χ2 | Logit Coefficient B | Standard Error | Logit | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
| Disease duration ≤6 months | 6 (5) | 9 (29) | 0.113 | 1.352 | 0.716 | 0.059† | 3.867 (0.951–15.724) |
| mJOA < 15 | 7 (4) | 14 (24) | 0.217 | 1.099 | 0.711 | 0.122† | 0.333 (0.083–1.344) |
| Hoffmann sign | 8 (3) | 16 (22) | 0.148 | 0.771 | 0.707 | 0.275 | 2.162 (0.541–8.635) |
| Mühle grade 3 | 8 (3) | 13 (25) | 0.054 | 1.635 | 0.758 | 0.031† | 5.128 (1.160–22.676) |
*, **: Chi-square p < 0.05, p < 0.01
† Variables with p < 0.2 in the bivariate analysis were entered into the forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression models
DSSEP dynamic somatosensory evoked potential
Final forward stepwise multiple linear regression model relating the best combination of clinical and imaging predictors to the DSSEP improvement upon extension and flexion
| Variables | Logit Coefficient B | Standard Error | Odds Ratio | Predicted Probability | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSSEP improvement upon Extension | ||||||
| Step 1 | With straight or sigmoid alignment | 2.927 | 1.115 | 0.009* | 18.667 | 81.6% |
| Constant | −3.332 | 1.018 | 0.001 | 0.036 | ||
| Step 2 | Stenotic segment number ≤ 2 | 2.508 | 1.174 | 0.033* | 12.275 | 85.7% |
| With straight or sigmoid alignment | 2.754 | 1.165 | 0.018* | 15.711 | ||
| Constant | −4.876 | 1.438 | 0.001 | 0.008 | ||
| Step 3 | Stenotic segment number ≤ 2 | 2.905 | 1.373 | 0.034* | 18.272 | 85.7% |
| With straight or sigmoid alignment | 3.341 | 1.402 | 0.017* | 28.253 | ||
| Disc degeneration grade ≤ 3 | 2.368 | 1.251 | 0.058 | 10.677 | ||
| Constant | −6.478 | 2.083 | 0.002 | 0.002 | ||
| DSSEP improvement upon Flexion | ||||||
| Step 1 | Mühle grade 3 | 1.754 | 0.762 | 0.021* | 5.778 | 77.6% |
| Constant | −2.159 | 0.61 | 0 | 0.115 | ||
| Step 2 | Disease duration ≤6 months | 1.642 | 0.816 | 0.044* | 5.165 | 85.7% |
| Mühle grade 3 | 1.987 | 0.834 | 0.017* | 7.295 | ||
| Constant | −2.914 | 0.804 | 0 | 0.054 | ||
* p < 0.05
Fig. 3Dynamic MR images of a patient with improved DSSEPs at extension and deteriorated DSSEPs at flexion. Panels from left to right show cervical flexion, neutral and extension positions. Upon neutral positioning, this patient had a straight cervical alignment and a single protruding C5/6 segment. The Mühle stenosis grade of this patient was Grade 1. Upon flexion, the spinal cord was longitudinally stretched and draped backward. The cerebral fluid in front of the spinal cord was narrower in the axial image. Upon extension, although the diameter of his cervical canal did not change significantly, the spinal cord was longitudinally relaxed and draped backward and, therefore, ameliorated anterior compression to some extent. The cerebral fluid in front of the spinal cord was wider in the axial image captured in the extension position