Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in corrective surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Evaluation of 354 consecutive cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring is recommended during corrective spinal surgery, and has been widely used in surgery for spinal deformity with successful outcomes. Despite successful outcomes of corrective surgery due to increased safety of the patients with the usage of spinal cord monitoring in many large spine centers, this modality has not yet achieved widespread popularity. We report the analysis of prospectively collected intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring data of 354 consecutive patients undergoing corrective surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) to establish the efficacy of multimodal neuromonitoring and to evaluate comparative sensitivity and specificity.

Materials and Methods: The study group consisted of 354 (female = 309; male = 45) patients undergoing spinal deformity corrective surgery between 2004 and 2008. Patients were monitored using electrophysiological methods including somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials simultaneously.

Results: Mean age of patients was 13.6 years (±2.3 years). The operative procedures involved were instrumented fusion of the thoracic/lumbar/both curves, Baseline somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP) and neurogenic motor-evoked potentials (NMEP) were recorded successfully in all cases. Thirteen cases expressed significant alert to prompt reversal of intervention. All these 13 cases with significant alert had detectable NMEP alerts, whereas significant SSEP alert was detected in 8 cases. Two patients awoke with new neurological deficit (0.56%) and had significant intraoperative SSEP + NMEP alerts. There were no false positives with SSEP (high specificity) but 5 patients with false negatives with SSEP (38%) reduced its sensitivity. There was no false negative with NMEP but 2 of 13 cases were false positive with NMEP (15%). The specificity of SSEP (100%) is higher than NMEP (96%); however, the sensitivity of NMEP (100%) is far better than SSEP (51%). Due to these results, the overall sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of combined multimodality neuromonitoring in this adult deformity series was 100, 98.5 and 85%, respectively.

Conclusion: Neurogenic motor-evoked potential (NMEP) monitoring appears to be superior to conventional SSEP monitoring for identifying evolving spinal cord injury. Used in conjunction, the sensitivity and specificity of combined neuromonitoring may reach up to 100%. Multimodality monitoring with SSEP + NMEP should be the standard of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McEwen GD, Bunnell WP, Sriram K. Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis: A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1975;57:404–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilber RG, Thompson GH, Shaffer JW. Postoperative neurological deficits in segmental spinal instrumentation: A study using spinal cord monitoring. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:1178–87.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, Baldus C, Blanke K. Major intraoperative neurologic deficits in pediatric and adult spinal deformity patients: Incidence and etiology at one institution. Spine 1998;23:324–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Leung YL, Grevitt M, Henderson L. Cord monitoring changes and segmental vessel ligation in the “at risk” cord during anterior spinal deformity surgery. Spine 2005;30:1870–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwartz DM, Drummond DS, Ecker ML. Influence of rigid spinal instrumentation on the neurogenic motor evoked potential. J Spinal Disord 1996;9:439–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones SJ, Buonamassa S, Crockard HA. Two cases of quadriparesis following anterior cervical discectomy, with normal perioperative somatosensory evoked potentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:273–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Owen JH. Necessity of using somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor evoked potentials to monitor spinal cord function during surgery for spinal deformity. Am Soc Neurophysiol Monitoring 1993;1:7–12.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: Results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995;96:6–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vauzelle C, Stagnara P, Jouvinroux P. Functional monitoring of spinal cord activity during spinal surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973;93:173–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nash CL Jr, Lorig RA, Schatzinger LA. Spinal cord monitoring during operative treatment of the spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;126:100–5.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Quraishi NA, Lewis SJ, Kelleher MO. Intraoperative multimodality monitoring in adult spinal deformity: Analysis of a prospective series of one hundred two cases with independent evaluation. Spine 2009;34:1504–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lesser RP, Raudzens P, Lüders H. Postoperative neurological deficits may occur despite unchanged intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials. Ann Neurol 1986;19:22–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen ZY, Wong HK, Chan YH. Variability of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during scoliosis surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:470–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Khoudeir I, Stigsby B. Monitoring scoliosis surgery with combined multiple-pulse transcranial electric motor and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials from lower and upper extremities. Spine 2003;28:194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Macdonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Al Saddigi A. Four-limb muscle motor evoked potential and optimized somatosensory evoked potential monitoring with decussation assessment: Results in 206 thoracolumbar spine surgeries. Eur Spine J 2007;16:S171–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2440–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim DH, Zaremski J, Kwon B. Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 2007;32:3041–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Haan P, Kalkman CJ, de Mol BA, Ubags LH, Veldman DJ, Jacobs MJ. Efficacy of Tc motor-evoked potentials to detect spinal cord ischemia during operations for thoraco-abdominal aneurysms. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997;113:87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pelosi L, Lamb J, Grevitt M, Mehdian SM, Webb JK, Blumhardt LD. Combined monitoring of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in orthopaedic spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:1082–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scoliosis Research Society. Position statement: Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of neurologic spinal cord function during spinal surgery. Scoliosis Res Soc 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK. Systems based algorithmic approach to intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Semin Spine Surg 2002;14:136–45.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Deletis V. Intraoperative neurophysiology and methodologies used to monitor the functional integrity of the motor system. In: Deletis V, Shils JL, editors. Neurophysiology in neurosurgery: A modern intraoperative approach. New York: Academic Press; 2002. p. 25–6.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwartz DM, Drummond DS, Hahn M, Ecker ML, Dormans JP. Prevention of positional brachial plexopathy during surgical correction of scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:178–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK, Hilibrand AS, Vaccaro AR, Bose B, Li M, et al.. Neurophysiological identification of position-induced neurologic injury during anterior cervical spine surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2006;20:437–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seyal M, Mull B. Mechanisms of signal change during intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 2002;19:409–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fehlings MG; Spine Focus Panel. Summary statement: The use of methylprednisolone in acute spinal cord injury. Spine 2001;26:S55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. York DH. A critical evaluation of the 50% criterion in SEP monitoring. Proceedings of the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hilibrand AS, Schwartz DM, Sethuraman V, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:1248–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Padberg AM, Wilson-Holden TJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH. Somatosensory- and motor- evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosis surgery: An accepted standard of care. Spine 1998;23:1392–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Noonan KJ, Walker T, Feinberg JR, Nagel M, Didelot W, Lindseth R. Factors related to false- versus true-positive neuromonitoring changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine 2002;27:825–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. DiCindio S, Theroux M, Shah S. Multimodality monitoring of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory-evoked potentials during surgical correction of spinal deformity in patients with cerebral palsy and other neuromuscular disorders. Spine 2003;28:1851–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Calancie B, Harris W, Broton JG, Alexeeva N, Green BA. “Threshold-level” multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex for intraoperative monitoring of spinal motor tracts: Description of method and comparison to somatosensory- evoked potential monitoring. J Neurosurg 1998;88:457–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Noonan KJ, Walker T, Feinberg JR, Nagel M, Didelot W, Lindseth R. Factors related to false-versus true positive neuromonitoring changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine 2002;27:825–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bejjani GK, Nora PC, Vera PL, Broemling L, Sekhar LN. The predictive value of intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potential monitoring: Review of 244 procedures. Neurosurgery 1998;43:491–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ginsberg HH, Shetter AG, Raudzens PA. Postoperative paraplegia with preserved intraoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials. J Neurosurg 1985;63:296–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kai Y, Owen JH, Kenke LG, Bridwell KH, Oakley DM, Sugioka Y. Use of sciatic neurogenic motor-evoked potentials versus spinal potentials to predict early-onset neurologic deficits when intervention is still possible during over distraction. Spine 1993;18:1134–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Pelosi L, Lamb J, Grevitt M, Mehdian SM, Webb JK, Blumhardt LD. Combined monitoring of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in orthopaedic spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:1082–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee JY, Hilibrand AS, Lim MR, Zavatsky J, Zeiller S, Schwartz DM, et al.. Characterization of neurophysiologic alerts during anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine 2006;31:1916–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Owen JH, Laschinger J, Bridwell K, Shimon S, Nielsen C, Dunlap J, et al.. Sensitivity and specificity of somatosensory- and neurogenic motor-evoked potentials in animals and humans. Spine 1988;13:1111–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Owen JH, Sponsellor PD, Szymanski J, Hurdle M. Efficacy of multimodal spinal cord monitoring during surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine 1995;20:1480–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Spine Center, National University Hospital, Singapore

    Vishal K. Kundnani, Lisa Zhu, H. H. Tak & H. K. Wong

Authors
  1. Vishal K. Kundnani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. H. Tak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H. K. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vishal K. Kundnani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kundnani, V.K., Zhu, L., Tak, H.H. et al. Multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring in corrective surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Evaluation of 354 consecutive cases. IJOO 44, 64–72 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.58608

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.58608

Key words

Search

Navigation