Efficacy of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Using Transcranial Motor-Evoked Potentials for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: A Prospective Multicenter Study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research.
Journal
Spine
ISSN: 1528-1159
Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7610646
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2022
01 Jan 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
5
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A prospective multicenter observational study. 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. 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. 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. 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%). 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.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
A prospective multicenter observational study.
OBJECTIVE
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
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34224513
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004156
pii: 00007632-202201010-00015
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E27-E37Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Nouri A, Tetreault L, Singh A, et al. Degenerative cervical myelopathy: epidemiology, genetics, and pathogenesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40:E675–E693.
Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter aospine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015; 40:1322–1328.
MacDonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, et al. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring - a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124:2291–2316.
Zhuang Q, Wang S, Zhang J, et al. How to make the best use of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring? Experience in 1162 consecutive spinal deformity surgical procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E1425–E1432.
Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Grob D, et al. The diagnostic value of multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during spine surgery: a prospective study of 1,017 patients. Eur Spine J 2007; 16: (suppl): 162–170.
Yoshida G, Ando M, Imagama S, et al. Alert timing and corresponding intervention with intraoperative spinal cord monitoring for high-risk spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:E470–E479.
Ajiboye RM, D’oro A, Ashana AO, et al. Routine use of intraoperative neuromonitoring during ACDFs for the treatment of spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy is questionable. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42:14–19.
Ney JP, Kessler DP. Neurophysiological monitoring during cervical spine surgeries: longitudinal costs and outcomes. Clin Neurophysiol 2018; 129:2245–2251.
Traynelis VC, Abode-Iyamah KO, Leick KM, et al. Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16:107–113.
Imajo Y, Taguchi T, Yone K, et al. Japanese 2011 nationwide survey on complications from spine surgery. J Orthop Sci 2015; 20:38–54.
Imajo Y, Taguchi T, Neo M, et al. Surgical and general complications in 2,961 Japanese patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: comparison of different age groups. Spine Surg Relat Res 2017; 1:7–13.
Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujiwara Y, et al. Postoperative segmental C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty may occur without intraoperative nerve injury: a prospective study with transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31:3013–3017.
Spitz S, Felbaum D, Aghdam N, et al. Delayed postoperative C5 root palsy and the use of neurophysiologic monitoring. Eur Spine J 2015; 24:2866–2871.
Bose B, Sestokas AK, Schwartz DM. Neurophysiological detection of iatrogenic C-5 nerve deficit during anterior cervical spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6:381–385.
Fujiwara Y, Manabe H, Izumi B, et al. The efficacy of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using transcranial electrically stimulated muscle-evoked potentials (TcE-MsEPs) for predicting postoperative segmental upper extremity motor paresis after cervical laminoplasty. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29:E188–E195.
Clark AJ, Safaee M, Chou D, et al. Comparative sensitivity of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring in predicting postoperative neurologic deficits: nondegenerative versus degenerative myelopathy. Glob Spine J 2016; 6:452–458.
Tetreault L, Ibrahim A, Côté P, et al. A systematic review of clinical and surgical predictors of complications following surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 24:77–99.
Kaneyama S, Sumi M, Kanatani T, et al. Prospective study and multivariate analysis of the incidence of C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:E1553–E1558.
Hasegawa K, Homma T, Chiba Y. Upper extremity palsy following cervical decompression surgery results from a transient spinal cord lesion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007; 32:E197–E202.
Basaran R, Kaner T. C5 nerve root palsy following decompression of cervical spine with anterior versus posterior types of procedures in patients with cervical myelopathy. Eur Spine J 2016; 25:2050–2059.
Shou F, Li Z, Wang H, et al. Prevalence of C5 nerve root palsy after cervical decompressive surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 2015; 24:2724–2734.
Ando M, Tamaki T, Matsumoto T, et al. Can postoperative deltoid weakness after cervical laminoplasty be prevented by using intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring? J Clin Monit Comput 2019; 33:123–132.
Sakaki K, Kawabata S, Ukegawa D, et al. Warning thresholds on the basis of origin of amplitude changes in transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:913–921.
Imajo Y, Kato Y, Kanchiku T, et al. Prediction of surgical outcome for proximal-type cervical spondylotic amyotrophy novel mode of assessment using compound action potentials of deltoid and biceps brachii and central motor conduction time. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E1444–E1449.
Imagama S, Matsuyama Y, Yukawa Y, et al. C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty: a multicentre study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92:393–400.
Nakashima H, Imagama S, Yukawa Y, et al. Multivariate analysis of C-5 palsy incidence after cervical posterior fusion with instrumentation: Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17:103–110.
Houten JK, Buksbaum JR, Collins MJ. Patterns of neurological deficits and recovery of postoperative C5 nerve palsy. J Neurosurg Spine 2020; 1–9. doi: 10.3171/2020.5.SPINE20514. Online ahead of print.
doi: 10.3171/2020.5.SPINE20514.
Nassr A, Eck JC, Ponnappan RK, et al. The incidence of C5 palsy after multilevel cervical decompression procedures: a review of 750 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:174–178.
Tsutsui S, Tamaki T, Yamada H, et al. Relationships between the changes in compound muscle action potentials and selective injuries to the spinal cord and spinal nerve roots. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114:1431–1436.
Kimura A, Seichi A, Hoshino Y, et al. Perioperative complications of anterior cervical decompression with fusion in patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a retrospective, multi-institutional study. J Orthop Sci 2012; 17:667–672.
Kim JS, Jang MJ, Hyun SJ, et al. Failure to generate baseline muscle motor evoked potentials during spine surgery: risk factors and association with the postoperative outcomes. Clin Neurophysiol 2018; 129:2276–2283.
Sumiya S, Kawabata S, Ushio S, et al. Cervical spinal cord injury associated with neck flexion in posterior cervical decompression. Clin Spine Surg 2019; 32:E221–E227.
Plata Bello J, Pérez-Lorensu PJ, Roldán-Delgado H, et al. Role of multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during positioning of patient prior to cervical spine surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126:1264–1270.
Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Ito Z, et al. Prevention of spinal cord injury using brain-evoked muscle-action potential (Br(E)-MsEP) monitoring in cervical spinal screw fixation. Eur Spine J 2017; 26:1154–1161.
Seichi A, Hoshino Y, Kimura A, et al. Neurological complications of cervical laminoplasty for patients with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament - a multi-institutional retrospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:E998–E1003.
Han S, Kwon YC, Kim SM, et al. Risk factor analysis of change in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during cervical open door laminoplasty. World Neurosurg 2018; 119:e235–e243.
Yoshii T, Morishita S, Inose H, et al. Comparison of perioperative complications in anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with fusion for cervical ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: propensity score matching analysis using a nation-wide inpatient data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2020; 45:E1006–E1012.
Kim SM, Yang H, Park SB, et al. Pattern-specific changes and discordant prognostic values of individual leg-muscle motor evoked potentials during spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2012; 123:1465–1470.
Kobayashi K, Ando K, Tsushima M, et al. Characteristics of multi-channel Br(E)-MsEP waveforms for the lower extremity muscles in thoracic spine surgery: comparison based on preoperative motor status. Eur Spine J 2019; 28:484–491.
Kim DG, Choi YD, Jin SH, et al. Intraoperative motor-evoked potential disappearance versus amplitude-decrement alarm criteria during cervical spinal surgery: a long-term prognosis. J Clin Neurol 2017; 13:38–46.
Katsumi K, Yamazaki A, Watanabe K, et al. Can prophylactic bilateral C4/C5 foraminotomy prevent postoperative C5 palsy after open-door laminoplasty?: A prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:748–754.
Yang J, Skaggs D, Chan P, et al. Raising mean arterial pressure alone restores 20% of intraoperative neuromonitoring losses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:890–894.
Ushirozako H, Yoshida G, Kobayashi S, et al. Impact of total propofol dose during spinal surgery: anesthetic fade on transcranial motor evoked potentials. J Neurosurg Spine 2019; 1–9. doi: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18322. Online ahead of print.
doi: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18322.