Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleNew Technology

Review of the Role of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spinal Surgery With a Focus on the True and False Positives and a Clinical Correlation

Ben Murphy, Evelyn Murphy, John Irwin, Lyndon Low, Stephen Haffey, Aiden Devitt, Fergus Byrne and John P. McCabe
International Journal of Spine Surgery June 2022, 16 (3) 548-553; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8247
Ben Murphy
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
2 Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
MRCS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Evelyn Murphy
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
FRCS (TR & ORTH)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Irwin
3 Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lyndon Low
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
2 Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
MB BCH BAO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen Haffey
3 Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, UK
MRCP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aiden Devitt
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
2 Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
FRCS (TR & ORTH)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fergus Byrne
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
2 Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
FRCS (TR & ORTH)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John P. McCabe
1 Spine Service, Department of Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgery, Galway University Hospitals, Galway, Ireland
2 Discipline of Surgery, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
FRCS (TR & ORTH)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1

    McCormick Neurologic Scale used to characterize neurological status.

    GradeDescription
    INeurological status intact, ambulating normally, minimal dysesthesia
    IIMild sensory of motor deficit, functioning independently
    IIIModerate deficit, some limitation of function, maintains independence with external aid
    IVSevere sensory or motor deficit, function very limited, dependent on others
    VParaplegia or quadriplegia, even in presence of flickering movement
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Types of operations monitored (N = 169).

    OperationsNo. (%) of Cases
    Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion72 (42.6%)
    Anterior cervical discectom and fusion (revision)1 (0.6%)
    Posterior cervical discectomy and fusion25 (14.8%)
    Posterior occipital cervical fusion5 (3%)
    Cervical corpectomy3 (1.8%)
    Cervical discectomy4 (2.4%)
    Thoracic corpectomy3 (1.8%)
    Thoracic fusion (revision)4 (2.4%)
    Thoracolumbar decompression and fusion17 (10%)
    Lumbar discectomy and fusion1 (0.6%)
    Lumbar fusion (revision)4 (2.4%)
    Posterior thoracolumbar instrumented fusion (scoliosis correction)29 (17.2%)
    Scoliosis correction (revision)1 (0.6%)
    Removal of intervertebral disc prosthesis1 (0.6%)
    • View popup
    Table 3

    Indications for neuromonitoring.

    IndicationsNo. (%) of Cases
    Cervical stenosis70 (41.4%)
    Cervical stenosis w/ disc prolapse2 (1.2%)
    Cervical disc prolapse24 (14.2%)
    Cervical osteomyelitis1 (0.6%
    Central cord syndrome1 (0.6%)
    Degenerative joint disease5 (3%)
    Thoracic stenosis1 (0.6%)
    Thoracic no. (fracture)3 (1.8%)
    Thoracic discitis and osteomyelitis1 (0.6%)
    Thoracic lesion1 (0.6%)
    Thoracolumbar scoliosis28 (16.6%)
    Lumbar stenosis3 (1.8%)
    Lumbar no. (fracture)3 (1.8%)
    Lumbar disc prolapse1 (0.6%)
    Metastases
     Lung4 (2.4%)
     Breast3 (1.8%)
     Renal2 (1.18%)
     Prostate1 (0.6%)
     Bowel1 (0.6%)
     Thyroid (papillary)1 (0.6%)
     Thymus1 (0.6%)
    Ankylosing spondylitis1 (0.6%)
    Rheumatoid arthritis (C1-C2 subluxation)1 (0.6%)
    Other1 (0.6%)
    • View popup
    Table 4

    Comparison of effect of correcting a positive signal in terms of new deficits.

    All positive signalsNew Deficit
    YesNo
    Uncorrected positive signal (n = 21)021
    Corrected positive signal (n = 24)024
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 16, Issue 3
1 Jun 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Review of the Role of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spinal Surgery With a Focus on the True and False Positives and a Clinical Correlation
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Review of the Role of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spinal Surgery With a Focus on the True and False Positives and a Clinical Correlation
Ben Murphy, Evelyn Murphy, John Irwin, Lyndon Low, Stephen Haffey, Aiden Devitt, Fergus Byrne, John P. McCabe
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2022, 16 (3) 548-553; DOI: 10.14444/8247

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Review of the Role of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spinal Surgery With a Focus on the True and False Positives and a Clinical Correlation
Ben Murphy, Evelyn Murphy, John Irwin, Lyndon Low, Stephen Haffey, Aiden Devitt, Fergus Byrne, John P. McCabe
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jun 2022, 16 (3) 548-553; DOI: 10.14444/8247
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • High Uptake Detection for Spinal Degenerative Changes: A Comparison Between Bone Scintigraphy and Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Combined With High-Resolution Computed Tomography
  • Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Placement Using the ExcelsiusGPS Robotic Navigation Platform: An Analysis of 728 Screws
  • A Network Meta-Analysis Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Pedicle Screw Placement Techniques Using Intraoperative Conventional, Navigation, Robot-Assisted, and Augmented Reality Guiding Systems
Show more New Technology

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • spinal cord monitoring
  • intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring
  • somatosensory-evoked potentials
  • motor-evoked potentials
  • spinal surgery
  • spine

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire