Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials assessment in congenital scoliosis.
Congenital scoliosis
Cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs)
Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs)
Sensitivity
Journal
BMC neurology
ISSN: 1471-2377
Titre abrégé: BMC Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Feb 2022
15 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
06
2021
accepted:
04
02
2022
entrez:
16
2
2022
pubmed:
17
2
2022
medline:
19
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to assess the value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) in monitoring spinal cord function for patients with congenital scoliosis (CS). This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients (n = 102) who underwent DSEP (T2-S1 dermatome), of whom 60 were normal subjects and 62 with congenital scoliosis. The study analyzed the latencies and peaks of N1-L, N1-R, P1-L and P1-R recorded by DSEPs of patients' thoracolumbar dermatomes. To observe the incidence of abnormal DSEPs and SSEPs in CS patients and to analyze the difference in sensitivity and reliability between the two in the examination of scoliosis patients. SPSS 22.0 statistical software package was used to analyze the data, and χ2 test and correlation analysis were used to indicate that the difference was statistically significant, p < 0.05. Sixty two patients with CS were evaluated with total spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Only 23 patients (37.09%) showed spinal cord malformations in the MRI findings. The DSEP recordings showed a relatively high sensitivity (97.8%) compared to the abnormality rate of SSEPs recordings, and the rates of waveform, latency and amplitude abnormalities were much higher in DSEPs recordings (36.6, 36.3, 24.8%) than in SSEPs recordings (3.2, 22.5, 14.5%). The abnormality rate of DSEP records with and without neurological symptoms was higher than the abnormality rate of SSEP records (100% vs 20, 96.2% vs 44.2%, p<0.05). And in 62 patients with CS, the rate of positive MRI (37.1%) was lower than that recorded by DSEP (79.6% / 57.9%). p < 0.05. DSEPs are more sensitive to microscopic posterior column dysfunction in patients with CS that cannot be detected by either radiology or routine clinical examination. Preoperative DSEPs assessment is recommended as a baseline examination for intraoperative monitoring and comparison with the postoperative situation. DSEPs recording complements the information obtained from routine clinical and radiological evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to assess the value of dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (DSEPs) and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) in monitoring spinal cord function for patients with congenital scoliosis (CS).
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients (n = 102) who underwent DSEP (T2-S1 dermatome), of whom 60 were normal subjects and 62 with congenital scoliosis. The study analyzed the latencies and peaks of N1-L, N1-R, P1-L and P1-R recorded by DSEPs of patients' thoracolumbar dermatomes. To observe the incidence of abnormal DSEPs and SSEPs in CS patients and to analyze the difference in sensitivity and reliability between the two in the examination of scoliosis patients. SPSS 22.0 statistical software package was used to analyze the data, and χ2 test and correlation analysis were used to indicate that the difference was statistically significant, p < 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixty two patients with CS were evaluated with total spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Only 23 patients (37.09%) showed spinal cord malformations in the MRI findings. The DSEP recordings showed a relatively high sensitivity (97.8%) compared to the abnormality rate of SSEPs recordings, and the rates of waveform, latency and amplitude abnormalities were much higher in DSEPs recordings (36.6, 36.3, 24.8%) than in SSEPs recordings (3.2, 22.5, 14.5%). The abnormality rate of DSEP records with and without neurological symptoms was higher than the abnormality rate of SSEP records (100% vs 20, 96.2% vs 44.2%, p<0.05). And in 62 patients with CS, the rate of positive MRI (37.1%) was lower than that recorded by DSEP (79.6% / 57.9%). p < 0.05.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DSEPs are more sensitive to microscopic posterior column dysfunction in patients with CS that cannot be detected by either radiology or routine clinical examination. Preoperative DSEPs assessment is recommended as a baseline examination for intraoperative monitoring and comparison with the postoperative situation. DSEPs recording complements the information obtained from routine clinical and radiological evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35168549
doi: 10.1186/s12883-022-02579-4
pii: 10.1186/s12883-022-02579-4
pmc: PMC8845289
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2018 Sep;35(5):388-398
pubmed: 29944600
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Apr;72(2):75-83
pubmed: 8476547
Ann Rehabil Med. 2020 Oct;44(5):353-361
pubmed: 32986946
J Neurosurg. 1982 Jan;56(1):1-18
pubmed: 7054401
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012 May;51(5):286-91
pubmed: 22792426
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2012 Apr;29(2):110-7
pubmed: 22469674
Surg Neurol. 2006 Nov;66(5):475-83; discussion 483
pubmed: 17084191
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 May;24(4):309-17
pubmed: 19841437
Neurology. 1997 Oct;49(4):1127-30
pubmed: 9339700
Pediatrics. 2015 Oct;136(4):e1105-19
pubmed: 26416933
Ann Neurol. 1985 Feb;17(2):171-6
pubmed: 2983601
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2003 Feb;14(1):57-69
pubmed: 12622482
J Pediatr Orthop. 2000 Jan-Feb;20(1):59-63
pubmed: 10641690
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2004 Feb;15(1):107-15
pubmed: 15029901
Rev Neurol. 2003 May 16-31;36(10):917-24
pubmed: 12766863
J Pediatr Orthop. 1991 Jan-Feb;11(1):36-41
pubmed: 1988476
Pain Res Manag. 2021 Jun 1;2021:8850281
pubmed: 34158875
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Aug;86(8):1704-10
pubmed: 15292418
Int J Psychophysiol. 1997 Apr;25(3):221-6
pubmed: 9105946
Spine J. 2013 Aug;13(8):922-5
pubmed: 23623638
J Pediatr Orthop. 1989 Jul-Aug;9(4):422-6
pubmed: 2732322
Neurol Clin. 1988 Nov;6(4):809-23
pubmed: 3070340
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1992 Jan-Feb;84(1):55-70
pubmed: 1370404
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Oct 15;27(20):2255-9
pubmed: 12394903
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2003 Feb;14(1):71-5
pubmed: 12622483
J Pediatr Orthop. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):525-31
pubmed: 11433169
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1947 Aug;10(3):134-40
pubmed: 21610884
Clin Electroencephalogr. 1991 Oct;22(4):236-49
pubmed: 1934521
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 1;33(10):E305-10
pubmed: 18449030