Role of Transcranial Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring During Traumatic Spinal Injury Surgery: 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:
01 Oct 2023
01 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
26
11
2022
accepted:
14
02
2023
medline:
13
9
2023
pubmed:
1
4
2023
entrez:
31
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A prospective multicenter observational cohort study. This study aimed to investigate the role of transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring during traumatic spinal injury surgery, the timing of TcMEP alerts, and intervention strategies to avoid intraoperative neurological complications. Intraoperative neuromonitoring, including TcMEP monitoring, is commonly used in high-risk spinal surgery to predict intraoperative spinal cord injury; however, little information is available on its use in traumatic spinal injury surgery. The TcMEP monitoring data of 350 consecutive patients who underwent traumatic spinal injury surgery (mean age, 69.3 y) between 2017 and 2021 were prospectively reviewed. In this study, a TcMEP amplitude reduction ≥70% was established as a TcMEP alert. A rescue case was defined as a case with the recovery of TcMEP amplitudes after certain procedures and without postoperative neurological complications. Among the 350 patients who underwent traumatic spinal injury surgery (TcMEP derivation rate 94%), TcMEP monitoring revealed seven true-positive (TP) (2.0%), three rescues (0.9%; rescue rate 30%), 31 false-positive, one false-negative, and 287 true-negative cases, resulting in 88% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 18% positive predictive value, and 99% negative predictive value. The TP rate in patients with preoperative motor deficits was 2.9%, which was higher than that in patients without preoperative motor deficits (1.1%). The most common timing of TcMEP alerts was during decompression (40%). During decompression, suspension of surgery with intravenous steroid injection was ineffective (rescue rate, 0%), and additional decompression was effective. Given the low prevalence of neurological complications (2.3%) and the low positive predictive value (18.4%), single usage of TcMEP monitoring during traumatic spinal injury surgery is not recommended. Further efforts should be made to reduce FP alert rates through better interpretation of multimodal Intraoperative neuromonitorings and the incorporation of anesthesiology to improve the positive predictive value. 3.
Sections du résumé
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
A prospective multicenter observational cohort study.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the role of transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring during traumatic spinal injury surgery, the timing of TcMEP alerts, and intervention strategies to avoid intraoperative neurological complications.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative neuromonitoring, including TcMEP monitoring, is commonly used in high-risk spinal surgery to predict intraoperative spinal cord injury; however, little information is available on its use in traumatic spinal injury surgery.
METHODS
METHODS
The TcMEP monitoring data of 350 consecutive patients who underwent traumatic spinal injury surgery (mean age, 69.3 y) between 2017 and 2021 were prospectively reviewed. In this study, a TcMEP amplitude reduction ≥70% was established as a TcMEP alert. A rescue case was defined as a case with the recovery of TcMEP amplitudes after certain procedures and without postoperative neurological complications.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 350 patients who underwent traumatic spinal injury surgery (TcMEP derivation rate 94%), TcMEP monitoring revealed seven true-positive (TP) (2.0%), three rescues (0.9%; rescue rate 30%), 31 false-positive, one false-negative, and 287 true-negative cases, resulting in 88% sensitivity, 90% specificity, 18% positive predictive value, and 99% negative predictive value. The TP rate in patients with preoperative motor deficits was 2.9%, which was higher than that in patients without preoperative motor deficits (1.1%). The most common timing of TcMEP alerts was during decompression (40%). During decompression, suspension of surgery with intravenous steroid injection was ineffective (rescue rate, 0%), and additional decompression was effective.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Given the low prevalence of neurological complications (2.3%) and the low positive predictive value (18.4%), single usage of TcMEP monitoring during traumatic spinal injury surgery is not recommended. Further efforts should be made to reduce FP alert rates through better interpretation of multimodal Intraoperative neuromonitorings and the incorporation of anesthesiology to improve the positive predictive value.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37000682
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004652
pii: 00007632-990000000-00287
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1388-1396Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Tsirikos AI, Aderinto J, Tucker SK, et al. Spinal cord monitoring using intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials for spinal trauma. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:385–394.
Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Wilson JR, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with acute spinal cord injury and central cord syndrome: recommendations on the timing (</=24 hours versus >24 hours) of decompressive surgery. Global Spine J. 2017;7:195S–202S.
Nasi D, Ruscelli P, Gladi M, et al. Ultra-early surgery in complete cervical spinal cord injury improves neurological recovery:a single-center retrospective study. Surg Neurol Int. 2019;10:207.
Richard-Denis A, Feldman DE, Thompson C, et al. The impact of acute management on the occurrence of medical complications during the specialized spinal cord injury acute hospitalization following motor-complete cervical spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med. 2018;41:388–396.
Boakye M, Patil CG, Santarelli J, et al. Laminectomy and fusion after spinal cord injury: national inpatient complications and outcomes. J Neurotrauma. 2008;25:173–183.
Liu Y, Shi CG, Wang XW, et al. Timing of surgical decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Int Orthop. 2015;39:2457–2463.
Garces-Ambrossi GL, McGirt MJ, Mehta VA, et al. Factors associated with progression-free survival and long-term neurological outcome after resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: analysis of 101 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:591–599.
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.
Yoshida G, Ushirozako H, Machino M, et al. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials for intraoperative nerve root monitoring during adult spinal deformity surgery: a prospective multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47:1590–1598.
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.
Sutter MA, Eggspuehler A, Grob D, et al. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during 409 lumbosacral surgical procedures in 409 patients. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(Suppl 2):S221–S228.
Hamilton DK, Smith JS, Sansur CA, et al. Rates of new neurological deficit associated with spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures: a report of the scoliosis research society morbidity and mortality committee. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1218–1228.
Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, et al. The efficacy of motor evoked potentials in fixed sagittal imbalance deformity correction surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:E414–E424.
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.
Thirumala PD, Crammond DJ, Loke YK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of motor evoked potentials to detect neurological deficit during idiopathic scoliosis correction: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:374–383.
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.
Dhall SS, Haefeli J, Talbott JF, et al. Motor evoked potentials correlate with magnetic resonance imaging and early recovery after acute spinal cord injury. Neurosurgery. 2018;82:870–876.
Ushirozako H, Yoshida G, Imagama S, et al. Efficacy of transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring during intra- and extramedullary spinal cord tumor surgery: a prospective multicenter study of the monitoring committee of the japanese society for spine surgery and related research. Global Spine J. 2021. doi:10.1177/21925682211011443.
doi: 10.1177/21925682211011443
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
doi: 10.3171/2018.10.SPINE18322
Takahashi M, Imagama S, Kobayashi K, et al. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46:E1069–E1076.
Funaba M, Kanchiku T, Yoshida G, et al. 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. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47:E27–E37.
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.
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.
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;46:E694–E700.
Funaba M, Kanchiku T, Kobayashi K, et al. The utility of transcranial stimulated motor-evoked potential alerts in cervical spine surgery varies based on preoperative motor status. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47:1659–1668.