A practical method for real-time detection of pedicle wall breaching during funneling.
Compound muscle action potential
Deformity surgery
EMG
Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
Pedicle breach
Scoliosis
Screw test
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
02
04
2019
accepted:
27
03
2021
pubmed:
21
4
2021
medline:
4
10
2022
entrez:
20
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A reliable, real-time method for the detection of pedicle wall breaching during funnelling in spine deformity surgery could be accessible to any surgeon assisted with neuromonitoring. Fifty-six consecutive patients (1066 pedicles), who were submitted to spinal deformity surgery from December 2013 to July 2015 were included in the study group. A control group of 13 consecutive patients (226 pedicles) with spinal deformity surgery were operated on from January to December 2013 and were excluded from finder stimulation. In the study cohort, continuous stimulation during funnelling was delivered via a finder and subsequently a compound muscle action potential (CMAP) threshold was determined. Following funnelling, manual inspection of the pedicular internal walls was performed. The CMAP thresholds were compared with the results of palpation to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the technique for detecting pedicular breaching. To cover common ranges of damage, the medial and lateral breaches were compared and the concave-apical breaches compared to the non-apical or convex-apical breaches. In addition, a pedicle screw test was estimated for all patients. ROC analysis showed 9 mA cut-off to have a sensitivity of 88.0% and a specificity of 89.5% for predicting pedicular breaching, with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.94; P < 0.001). Using 9 mA threshold as an alert criterion, funnelling at the concave-apical pedicles showed significantly more true and false positive alerts and fewer true negative alerts when compared with the non-apical and convex-apical pedicles (P < 0.001). Medial breaches had significantly lower stimulation thresholds than lateral breaches (P < 0.001). Thresholds of screw-testing were significantly higher for study than for control-patients (P = 0.002). Finder stimulation has a considerably higher sensitivity and specificity for prediction of pedicular breaching, most prominent for medial breaches. Screw-testing displayed significantly better results in patients undergoing the finder stimulation technique, as compared with the control group. The main advantages of our method are its high safety level and low cost, which may be critical in less affluent countries. III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A reliable, real-time method for the detection of pedicle wall breaching during funnelling in spine deformity surgery could be accessible to any surgeon assisted with neuromonitoring.
METHODS
METHODS
Fifty-six consecutive patients (1066 pedicles), who were submitted to spinal deformity surgery from December 2013 to July 2015 were included in the study group. A control group of 13 consecutive patients (226 pedicles) with spinal deformity surgery were operated on from January to December 2013 and were excluded from finder stimulation. In the study cohort, continuous stimulation during funnelling was delivered via a finder and subsequently a compound muscle action potential (CMAP) threshold was determined. Following funnelling, manual inspection of the pedicular internal walls was performed. The CMAP thresholds were compared with the results of palpation to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the technique for detecting pedicular breaching. To cover common ranges of damage, the medial and lateral breaches were compared and the concave-apical breaches compared to the non-apical or convex-apical breaches. In addition, a pedicle screw test was estimated for all patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ROC analysis showed 9 mA cut-off to have a sensitivity of 88.0% and a specificity of 89.5% for predicting pedicular breaching, with an area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.90-0.94; P < 0.001). Using 9 mA threshold as an alert criterion, funnelling at the concave-apical pedicles showed significantly more true and false positive alerts and fewer true negative alerts when compared with the non-apical and convex-apical pedicles (P < 0.001). Medial breaches had significantly lower stimulation thresholds than lateral breaches (P < 0.001). Thresholds of screw-testing were significantly higher for study than for control-patients (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Finder stimulation has a considerably higher sensitivity and specificity for prediction of pedicular breaching, most prominent for medial breaches. Screw-testing displayed significantly better results in patients undergoing the finder stimulation technique, as compared with the control group. The main advantages of our method are its high safety level and low cost, which may be critical in less affluent countries.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33877449
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03885-1
pii: 10.1007/s00402-021-03885-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3017-3025Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Weiss H-R, Goodall D (2008) Rate of complications in scoliosis surgery—a systematic review of the Pub Med literature. Scoliosis 3(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-7161-3-9
doi: 10.1186/1748-7161-3-9
pubmed: 18681956
pmcid: 2525632
Ma Y (1994) Review of the “historical cohort study of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic, lumbar and sacral spinal fusions” report. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(20):2297–2299. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199410151-00006
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199410151-00006
Fujita M, Diab M, Xu Z, Puttlitz CM (2006) A biomechanical analysis of sublaminar and subtransverse process fixation using metal wires and polyethylene cables. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2202–2208
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000232831.63589.22
Cotrel-Dubrousset DF (1988) Instrumentation in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis. Orthop Clin North Am 19:291–311
doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(20)30309-6
Brown CA, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Geideman WM, Hasan SA, Blanke K (1998) Complications of pediatric thoracolumbar and lumbar pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23(14):1566–1571. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807150-00012
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199807150-00012
Pastorelli F, Di Silvestre M, Plasmati R et al (2011) The prevention of neural complications in the surgical treatment of scoliosis: the role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring. Eur Spine J 20(Suppl 1):S105–S114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1756-z
doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-1756-z
pubmed: 21416379
Schwartz DM (2007) Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Jt Surg 89(11):2440. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01476
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01476
MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Khoudeir I, Stigsby B (2003) Monitoring scoliosis surgery with combined multiple pulse transcranial electric motor and cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials from the lower and upper extremities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(2):194–203. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200301150-00018
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200301150-00018
Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Kim Y et al (2002) Can triggered electromyograph thresholds predict safe thoracic pedicle screw placement? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27(18):2030–2035. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000024172.28389.20
doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000024172.28389.20
Shi Y, Binette M, Martin WH, Pearson JM, Hart RA (2003) Electrical stimulation for intraoperative evaluation of thoracic pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(6):595–601. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000049926.43292.93
doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000049926.43292.93
Raynor BL, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Taylor BA, Padberg AM (2007) Correlation between low triggered electromyographic thresholds and lumbar pedicle screw malposition: analysis of 4857 screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32(24):2673–2678. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a524f
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31815a524f
Clements DH, Morledge DE, Martin WH, Betz RR (1996) Evoked and spontaneous electromyography to evaluate lumbosacral pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21(5):600–604. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199603010-00013
doi: 10.1097/00007632-199603010-00013
de Blas G, Barrios C, Regidor I et al (2012) Safe pedicle screw placement in thoracic scoliotic curves using t-EMG. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(6):E387–E395. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823b077b
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823b077b
Duffy MF, Phillips JH, Knapp DR, Herrera-Soto JA (2010) Usefulness of electromyography compared to computed tomography scans in pedicle screw placement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(2):E43-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b3f467
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b3f467
Schwender D, Daunderer M, Mulzer S, Klasing S, Finsterer U, Peter K (1996) Spectral edge frequency of the electroencephalogram to monitor “depth” of anaesthesia with isoflurane or propofol. Br J Anaesth 77(2):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/77.2.179
doi: 10.1093/bja/77.2.179
pubmed: 8881621
Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Puno RM, Johnson JR, Shields CB, Linden RD (1995) A prospective analysis of intraoperative electromyographic monitoring of pedicle screw placement with computed tomographic scan confirmation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20(12):1375–1379. http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/abstract/1995/06020/a_prospective_analysis_of_intraoperative.8.aspx . Accessed 14 August 2017
Calancie B, Madsen P, Lebwohl N (1994) Stimulus-evoked EMG monitoring during transpedicular lumbosacral spine instrumentation. Initial clinical results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(24):2780–2786. http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Abstract/1994/12150/Stimulus_Evoked_EMG_Monitoring_During.8.aspx . Accessed 14 August 2017
Minto CF, Schnider TW, Shafer SL (1997) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil II. Model application. Anesthesiology 86(1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.1990.90.9.792
doi: 10.7556/jaoa.1990.90.9.792
pubmed: 9009936
Marsh B, Morton N, Kenny GNC (1991) Pharmacokinetic model driven infusion of propofol in children. Br J Anaesth 67:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/Bja/67.1.41
doi: 10.1093/Bja/67.1.41
pubmed: 1859758
Danesh-Clough T, Taylor P, Hodgson B, Walton M (2001) The use of evoked EMG in detecting misplaced thoracolumbar pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(12):1313–1316. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200106150-00008
doi: 10.1097/00007632-200106150-00008
Hicks JM, Singla A, Shen FH, Arlet V (2010) Complications of pedicle screw fixation in scoliosis surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(11):E465–E470. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d1021a
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d1021a
Samdani AF, Tantorski M, Cahill PJ et al (2011) Triggered electromyography for placement of thoracic pedicle screws: is it reliable? Eur Spine J 20(6):869–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1653-x
doi: 10.1007/s00586-010-1653-x
pubmed: 21170665
Liljenqvist UR, Allkemper T, Hackenberg L, Link TM, Steinbeck J, Halm HFH (2002) Analysis of vertebral morphology in idiopathic scoliosis with use of magnetic resonance imaging and multiplanar reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(3):359–368. http://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/subjects/Spine/Fulltext/2002/03000/Analysis_of_Vertebral_Morphology_in_Idiopathic.5.aspx . Accessed 14 August 2017
Lehman RA, Potter BK, Kuklo TR et al (2004) Probing for thoracic pedicle screw tract violation(s). J Spinal Disord Tech 17(4):277–283. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000095399.27687.c5
doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000095399.27687.c5
pubmed: 15280755
Sedory DM, Crawford JJ, Topp RF (2011) The reliability of the ball-tipped probe for detecting pedicle screw tract violations prior to instrumenting the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(6):E447-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dbfe40
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181dbfe40