Study Design. Prospective multicenter cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to validate an alarm point of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring () formulated by the Monitoring Working Group (WG) of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR). Summary of Background Data. The Monitoring WG of the JSSR formulated an alarm point of IONM using transcranial electrical stimulation-muscle motor evoked potentials (Tc(E)-MEPs) and has conducted a prospective multicenter study. The validity of the JSSR alarm point of ! 70% decreased in Tc(E)-MEPs for each high-risk surgery and any other spine surgeries has not been verified. Methods. Patients who underwent spine and spinal cord surgery with IONM in 16 Japanese spine centers in the Monitoring WG of the JSSR from 2017 to 2018 were enrolled. The patients were divided into the high-risk surgery group (Group HR) and the common surgery group (Group C). Group HR was defined by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), spinal deformity, and spinal cord tumor. Group C was classified as other spine surgeries. The alarm point was defined as a !70% decrease in the Tc(E)-MEPs. Results. In Group HR, the sensitivity and specificity were 94.4% and 87.0%, respectively. In Group C, the sensitivity and specificity were 63.6% and 91.9%. The sensitivity in Group C was statistically lower than that in Group HR (P < 0.05). In Group HR, the sensitivity and specificity in OPLL were 100% and 86.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity in spinal deformity were 87.5% and 84.8%, respectively, and the sensitivity and specificity in spinal cord tumors were 92.9% and 89.9%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity in each high-risk surgery showed no significant difference. Conclusion. The alarm point of IONM by the Monitoring WG of the JSSR appeared to be valid for each disease in Group HR.
Study Design: Multicenter prospective study. Objectives: Although intramedullary spinal cord tumor (IMSCT) and extramedullary SCT (EMSCT) surgeries carry high risk of intraoperative motor deficits (MDs), the benefits of transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring are well-accepted; however, comparisons have not yet been conducted. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of TcMEP monitoring during IMSCT and EMSCT resection surgeries. Methods: We prospectively reviewed TcMEP monitoring data of 81 consecutive IMSCT and 347 EMSCT patients. We compared the efficacy of interventions based on TcMEP alerts in the IMSCT and EMSCT groups. We defined our alert point as a TcMEP amplitude reduction of ≥70% from baseline. Results: In the IMSCT group, TcMEP monitoring revealed 20 true-positive (25%), 8 rescue (10%; rescue rate 29%), 10 false-positive, a false-negative, and 41 true-negative patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 80%. In the EMSCT group, TcMEP monitoring revealed 20 true-positive (6%), 24 rescue (7%; rescue rate 55%), 29 false-positive, 2 false-negative, and 263 true-negative patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 90%. The most common TcMEP alert timing was during tumor resection (96% vs. 91%), and suspension surgeries with or without intravenous steroid administration were performed as intervention techniques. Conclusions: Postoperative MD rates in IMSCT and EMSCT surgeries using TcMEP monitoring were 25% and 6%, and rescue rates were 29% and 55%. We believe that the usage of TcMEP monitoring and appropriate intervention techniques during SCT surgeries might have predicted and prevented the occurrence of intraoperative MDs.
Study Design.
A prospective multicenter observational study.
Objective.
To elucidate the efficacy of transcranial motor-evoked potentials (Tc(E)-MEPs) in degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) surgery by comparing cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) to cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) and investigate the timing of Tc(E)-MEPs alerts and types of interventions affecting surgical outcomes.
Summary of Background Data.
Although CSM and OPLL are the most commonly encountered diseases of DCM, the benefits of Tc(E)-MEPs for DCM remain unclear and comparisons of these two diseases have not yet been conducted.
Methods.
We examined the results of Tc(E)-MEPs from 1176 DCM cases (840 CSM /336 OPLL) and compared patients background by disease, preoperative motor deficits, and the type of surgical procedure. We also assessed the efficacy of interventions based on Tc(E)-MEPs alerts. Tc(E)-MEPs alerts were defined as an amplitude reduction of more than 70% below the control waveform. Rescue cases were defined as those in which waveform recovery was achieved after interventions in response to alerts and no postoperative paralysis.
Results.
Overall sensitivity was 57.1%, and sensitivity was higher with OPLL (71.4%) than with CSM (42.9%). The sensitivity of acute onset segmental palsy including C5 palsy was 40% (OPLL/CSM: 66.7%/0%) whereas that of lower limb palsy was 100%. The most common timing of Tc(E)-MEPs alerts was during decompression (63.16%), followed by screw insertion (15.79%). The overall rescue rate was 57.9% (OPLL/CSM: 58.3%/57.1%).
Conclusion.
Since Tc(E)-MEPs are excellent for detecting long tract injuries, surgeons need to consider appropriate interventions in response to alerts. The detection of acute onset segmental palsy by Tc(E)-MEPs was partially possible with OPLL, but may still be difficult with CSM. The rescue rate was higher than 50% and appropriate interventions may have prevented postoperative neurological complications.
Level of Evidence: 3
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.