Characteristics of Tc-MEP Waveforms for Different Locations of Intradural Extramedullary Tumors: A Prospective Multicenter Study of 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:
15 Jan 2022
15 Jan 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
3
9
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
2
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Prospective multicenter study. To examine transcranial motor-evoked potential (Tc-MEP) waveforms in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumors, focused on the characteristics for cervical, thoracic, and conus lesions. IDEM tumors are normally curable after resection, but neurological deterioration may occur after surgery. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using Tc-MEPs during surgery is important for timely detection of possible neurological injury. The subjects were 233 patients with IDEM tumors treated surgically with Tc-MEP monitoring at 9 centers. The alarm threshold was ≥70% waveform deterioration from baseline. A case with a Tc-MEP alert that normalized and had no new motor deficits postoperatively was defined as a rescue case. A deterioration of manual muscle test score ≥1 compared to the preoperative value was defined as postoperative worsening of motor status. The 233 patients (92 males, 39%) had a mean age of 58.1 ± 18.1 years, and 185 (79%), 46 (20%), and 2 (1%) had schwannoma, meningioma, and neurofibroma. These lesions had cervical (C1-7), thoracic (Th1-10), and conus (Th11-L2) locations in 82 (35%), 96 (41%), and 55 (24%) cases. There were no significant differences in preoperative motor deficit among the lesion levels. Thoracic lesions had a significantly higher rate of poor baseline waveform derivation (0% cervical, 6% thoracic, 0% conus, P < 0.05) and significantly more frequent intraoperative alarms (20%, 31%, 15%, P < 0.05). Use of Tc-MEPs for predicting neurological deficits after IDEM surgery had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 89%; however, the positive predictive value was low. Poor derivation of waveforms, appearance of alarms, and worse final waveforms were all significantly more frequent for thoracic lesions. Thus, amplification of the waveform amplitude, using multimodal monitoring, and more appropriate interventions after an alarm may be particularly important in surgery for thoracic IDEM tumors.Level of Evidence: 3.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Prospective multicenter study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To examine transcranial motor-evoked potential (Tc-MEP) waveforms in intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in surgery for intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumors, focused on the characteristics for cervical, thoracic, and conus lesions.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
IDEM tumors are normally curable after resection, but neurological deterioration may occur after surgery. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring using Tc-MEPs during surgery is important for timely detection of possible neurological injury.
METHODS
METHODS
The subjects were 233 patients with IDEM tumors treated surgically with Tc-MEP monitoring at 9 centers. The alarm threshold was ≥70% waveform deterioration from baseline. A case with a Tc-MEP alert that normalized and had no new motor deficits postoperatively was defined as a rescue case. A deterioration of manual muscle test score ≥1 compared to the preoperative value was defined as postoperative worsening of motor status.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 233 patients (92 males, 39%) had a mean age of 58.1 ± 18.1 years, and 185 (79%), 46 (20%), and 2 (1%) had schwannoma, meningioma, and neurofibroma. These lesions had cervical (C1-7), thoracic (Th1-10), and conus (Th11-L2) locations in 82 (35%), 96 (41%), and 55 (24%) cases. There were no significant differences in preoperative motor deficit among the lesion levels. Thoracic lesions had a significantly higher rate of poor baseline waveform derivation (0% cervical, 6% thoracic, 0% conus, P < 0.05) and significantly more frequent intraoperative alarms (20%, 31%, 15%, P < 0.05). Use of Tc-MEPs for predicting neurological deficits after IDEM surgery had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 89%; however, the positive predictive value was low.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Poor derivation of waveforms, appearance of alarms, and worse final waveforms were all significantly more frequent for thoracic lesions. Thus, amplification of the waveform amplitude, using multimodal monitoring, and more appropriate interventions after an alarm may be particularly important in surgery for thoracic IDEM tumors.Level of Evidence: 3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34474444
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004112
pii: 00007632-202201150-00014
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
172-179Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Helseth A, Mørk SJ. Primary intraspinal neoplasms in Norway, 1955 to 1986. A population-based survey of 467 patients. J Neurosurg 1989; 71:842–845.
Van Goethem JWM, van den Hauwe L, Özsarlak O, et al. Spinal tumors. Eur J Radiol 2004; 50:159–176.
Joaquim AF, Almeida JP, Dos Santos MJ, et al. Surgical management of intradural extramedullary tumors located anteriorly to the spinal cord. J Clin Neurosci 2012; 19:1150–1153.
Westwick HJ, Yuh SJ, Shamji MF. Complication avoidance in the resection of spinal meningiomas. World Neurosurg 2015; 83:627–634.
Deletis V, Sala F. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during spinal cord and spine surgery: a review focus on the corticospinal tracts. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119:248–264.
Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC, et al. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:S37–46.
Ahn DK, Park HS, Choi DJ, et al. The surgical treatment for spinal intradural extramedullary tumors. Clin Orthop Surg 2009; 1:165–172.
Costa P, Peretta P, Faccani G. Relevance of intraoperative D wave in spine and spinal cord surgeries. Eur Spine J 2013; 22:840–848.
Kothbauer KF, Deletis V, Epstein FJ. Motor-evoked potential monitoring for intramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery: correlation of clinical and neurophysiological data in a series of 100 consecutive procedures. Neurosurg Focus 1998; 4:e1.
Malhotra NR, Shaffrey CI. Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35:2167–2179.
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:S162–S170.
Ito Z, Imagama S, Sakai Y, et al. A new criterion for the alarm point for compound muscle action potentials. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 17:348–356.
Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, et al. The cutoff amplitude of transcranial motor evoked potentials for transient postoperative motor deficits in intramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014; 39:E1086–E1094.
Yamada K, Matsuyama Y, Kobayashi S, et al. Evaluation of the alarm criteria for transcranial electrical stimulation muscle evoked potential in spinal deformity surgery: multi-institution survey by the spinal cord monitoring committee of the Japanese society for spine surgery and related research. J Spine Res 2015; 6:1354–1362.
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.
Kobayashi K, Ando K, Shinjo R, et al. A new criterion for the alarm point using a combination of waveform amplitude and onset latency in Br(E)-MsEP monitoring in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 27:1–7.
Kobayashi K, Ando K, Tsushima M, et al. Characteristics of multichannel 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.
Macdonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, et al. American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring - a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol 2013; 124:2291–2316.
Kobayashi K, Imagama S, Yoshida G, et al. Effects of preoperative motor status on intraoperative motor-evoked potential monitoring for high-risk spinal surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021; in press.
Korn A, Halevi D, Lidar Z, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during resection of intradural extramedullary spinal cord tumors: experience with 100 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157:819–830.
Lakomkin N, Mistry AM, Zuckerman SL, et al. Utility of intraoperative monitoring in the resection of spinal cord tumors: an analysis by tumor location and anatomical region. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:287–294.
Harel R, Schleifer D, Appel S, et al. Spinal intradural extramedullary tumors: the value of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring on surgical outcome. Neurosurg Rev 2017; 40:613–619.
Ghadirpour R, Nasi D, Iaccarino C, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for intradural extramedullary tumors: why not? Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 130:140–149.
Ghobrial GM, Williams KA Jr, Arnold P, et al. Iatrogenic neurologic deficit after lumbar spine surgery: a review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2015; 139:76–80.
Matsuyama Y, Sakai Y, Katayama Y, et al. Surgical results of intramedullary spinal cord tumor with spinal cord monitoring to guide extent of resection. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 10:404–413.
Kobayashi S, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K, et al. A new alarm point of transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potentials for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: a prospective multicenter study from the Spinal Cord Monitoring Working Group of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. J Neurosurg Spine 2014; 20:102–107.
Muramoto A, Imagama S, Ito Z, et al. The cutoff amplitude of transcranial motor-evoked potentials for predicting postoperative motor deficits in thoracic spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013; 38:E21–E27.
McCormick PC, Michelsen WJ, Post KD, et al. Cavernous malformations of the spinal cord. Neurosurgery 1988; 23:459–463.
Martirosyan NL, Feuerstein JS, Theodore N, et al. Blood supply and vascular reactivity of the spinal cord under normal and pathological conditions. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15:238–251.
Forster MT, Marquardt G, Seifert V, et al. Spinal cord tumor surgery—importance of continuous intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring after tumor resection. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37:E1001–E1008.
Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Ando M, et al. What is the best multimodality combination for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring of motor function? A multicenter study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. Global Spine J 2016; 6:234–241.