Validity of the Alarm Point in Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring of the Spinal Cord by the Monitoring Working Group of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study of 1934 Cases.

Cohort Studies Evoked Potentials, Motor Humans Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring Japan Prospective Studies Spinal Cord

Journal

Spine

ISSN: 1528-1159

Titre abrégé: Spine (Phila Pa 1976)

Pays: United States

ID NLM: 7610646

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Oct 2021

Historique:

entrez: 24 9 2021

pubmed: 25 9 2021

medline: 29 9 2021

Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Prospective multicenter cohort study. 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). 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. 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. 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. The alarm point of IONM by the Monitoring WG of the JSSR appeared to be valid for each disease in Group HR. Meanwhile, applying the JSSR alarm point for Group C potentially needed attention.Level of Evidence: 3.

Sections du résumé

STUDY DESIGN METHODS

Prospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE 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 BACKGROUND

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 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 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 CONCLUSIONS

The alarm point of IONM by the Monitoring WG of the JSSR appeared to be valid for each disease in Group HR. Meanwhile, applying the JSSR alarm point for Group C potentially needed attention.Level of Evidence: 3.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004065 PMID: 34559750

pubmed: 34559750

doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004065

pii: 00007632-202110150-00007

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

E1069-E1076

Informations de copyright

Références

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–S46.

Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K, et al. Usefulness of multi-channels in intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: multi-center study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. Eur Spine J 2013; 22:1891–1896.

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.

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.

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.

Hsu B, Cree AK, Lagopoulos J, et al. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials combined with response recording through compound muscle action potential as the sole modality of spinal cord monitoring in spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008; 33:1100–1106.

Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya Y, Ando M, et al. Intraoperative spinal cord monitoring -Multi center study of Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR). Clinical Electroencephalography 2009; 51:286–291. (in Japanese).

Keegan JJ. The cause of dissociated motor loss in the upper extremity with cervical spondylosis. J Neurosurg 1965; 23:528–536.

Jiang SD, Jiang LS, Dai LY. Cervical spondylotic amyotrophy. Eur Spine J 2011; 20:351–357.

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:E913–E921.

Li H, Dai LY. A systematic review of complications in cervical spine surgery for ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine J 2011; 11:1049–1057.

Nakajima H, Watanabe S, Honjoh K, et al. Long-term outcome of anterior cervical decompression with fusion for cervical ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament including postsurgical remnant ossified spinal lesion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2019; 44:E1452–E1460.

Matsuyama Y, Yoshihara H, Tsuji T, et al. Surgical outcome of ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL) of the thoracic spine: implication of the type of ossification and surgical options. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005; 18:492–497.

Imagama S, Ando K, Takeuchi K, et al. Perioperative complications after surgery for thoracic ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament: a nationwide multicenter prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2018; 43:E1389–E1397.

Feng B, Qiu G, Shen J, et al. Impact of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during surgery for spine deformity and potential risk factors for neurological monitoring changes. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012; 25:E108–E114.

Bartley CE, Yaszay B, Bastrom TP, et al. Perioperative and delayed major complications following surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99:1206–1212.

Helenius L, Diarbakerli E, Grauers A, et al. Back pain and quality of life after surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis at 5-year follow-up: Comparison with healthy controls and patients with untreated idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101:1460–1466.

Smith JS, Klineberg E, Lafage V, et al. Prospective multicenter assessment of perioperative and minimum 2-year postoperative complication rates associated with adult spinal deformity surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2016; 25:1–14.

Fehlings MG, Kato S, Lenke LG, et al. Incidence and risk factors of postoperative neurologic decline after complex adult spinal deformity surgery: results of the Scoli-RISK-1 study. Spine J 2018; 18:1733–1740.

Safaee MM, Lyon R, Barbaro NM, et al. Neurological outcomes and surgical complications in 221 spinal nerve sheath tumors. J Neurosurg Spine 2017; 26:103–111.

Ghadirpour R, Nasi D, Iaccarino C, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for intradural extramedullary spinal tumors: predictive value and relevance of D-wave amplitude on surgical outcome during a 10-year experience. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 30:259–267.

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.

Sandalcioglu IE, Gasser T, Asgari S, et al. Functional outcome after surgical treatment of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: experience with 78 patients. Spinal Cord 2005; 43:34–41.

Taneichi H, Nohara Y, Ueyama K, et al. Complication of the spine surgery: results of the complication survey of the Japan Spine Research Society. J Jpn Orthop Assoc 2006; 80:5–16.

Kelleher MO, Tan G, Sarjeant R, et al. Predictive value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during cervical spine surgery: a prospective analysis of 1055 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2008; 8:215–221.

Sutter M, Eggspuehler A, Jezenszky D, et al. The impact and value of uni- and multimodal intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) on neurological complications during spine surgery: a prospective study of 2728 patients. Eur Spine J 2019; 28:599–610.

Eggspuehler A, Sutter MA, Grob D, et al. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during surgical decompression of thoracic spinal stenosis in 36 patients. Eur Spine J 2007; 16:S216–S220.