Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delayed postoperative C5 root palsy and the use of neurophysiologic monitoring

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Although advances have been made in surgical technique and intraoperative monitoring, the rate of postoperative C5 palsy remains the same. We attempt to define characteristics which may predict risk of developing postoperative C5 palsy.

Methods

Retrospective chart review identified 644 patients undergoing cervical procedures. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion was performed in 456, anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) in 78, posterior laminectomy and fusion (PLF) in 106, and posterior open-door laminoplasty in 4 patients. All patients had neurophysiologic monitoring [somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP), spontaneous electromyogram (EMG), and/or motor-evoked potential (MEP)].

Results

Postoperative C5 root palsy occurred in 5 (2 with ACCF and 3 with PLF) cases (1.4 %). In all cases, there were no changes in intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. C5 palsy did not occur before postoperative day 2.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing cervical decompression remain at risk for C5 root palsy despite use of monitoring. Given that all patients experienced delayed onset of C5 palsy, MEP, SSEP, and EMG may not be sensitive enough to assess the risk of developing C5 palsy.

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. Sakaura H, Hosono N, Mukai Y et al (2003) C5 palsy after decompression surgery for cervical myelopathy: review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:2447–2451. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000090833.96168.3F

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. May DM, Jones SJ, Crockard HA (1996) Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical surgery: identification of pre- and intraoperative risk factors associated with neurological deterioration. J Neurosurg 85:566–573. doi:10.3171/jns.1996.85.4.0566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelleher MO, Tan G, Sarjeant R, Fehlings MG (2008) Predictive value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during cervical spine surgery: a prospective analysis of 1055 consecutive patients. J Neurosurg Spine 8:215–221. doi:10.3171/SPI/2008/8/3/215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bose B, Sestokas AK, Schwartz DM (2007) Neurophysiological detection of iatrogenic C-5 nerve deficit during anterior cervical spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 6:381–385. doi:10.3171/spi.2007.6.5.381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fan D, Schwartz DM, Vaccaro AR et al (2002) Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:2499–2502. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000031313.90883.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhalodia VM, Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK, Bloomgarden G, Arkins T, Tomak P, Gorelick J, Wijesekera S, Beiner J, Goodrich I (2013) Efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of transcranial electrical stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials and spontaneous electromyography activity to identify acute-versus delayed-onset C-5 nerve root palsy during cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 19:395–402

  7. Tanaka N, Nakanishi K, Fujiwara Y et al (2006) Postoperative segmental C5 palsy after cervical laminoplasty may occur without intraoperative nerve injury: a prospective study with transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:3013–3017. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000250303.17840.96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jimenez JC, Sani S, Braverman B et al (2005) Palsies of the fifth cervical nerve root after cervical decompression: prevention using continuous intraoperative electromyography monitoring. J Neurosurg Spine 3:92–97. doi:10.3171/spi.2005.3.2.0092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bydon M, Macki M, Kaloostian P et al (2014) Incidence and prognostic factors of c5 palsy: a clinical study of 1001 cases and review of the literature. Neurosurgery 74:595–604. doi:10.1227/NEU.0000000000000322 (discussion 604–605)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Greiner-Perth R, Elsaghir H, Böhm H, El-Meshtawy M (2005) The incidence of C5–C6 radiculopathy as a complication of extensive cervical decompression: own results and review of literature. Neurosu.rg Rev 28:137–142. doi:10.1007/s10143-004-0352-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hasegawa K, Homma T, Chiba Y (2007) Upper extremity palsy following cervical decompression surgery results from a transient spinal cord lesion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 32:E197–E202. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000257576.84646.49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hashimoto M, Mochizuki M, Aiba A et al (2010) C5 palsy following anterior decompression and spinal fusion for cervical degenerative diseases. Eur Spine J 19:1702–1710. doi:10.1007/s00586-010-1427-5

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stecker M (2012) A review of intraoperative monitoring for spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int 3:174. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.98579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC et al (2013) Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:S173–S182. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7eaaf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Komagata M, Nishiyama M, Endo K et al (2004) Prophylaxis of C5 palsy after cervical expansive laminoplasty by bilateral partial foraminotomy. Spine J 4:650–655. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.03.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Karpova A, Ranganathan A, Davis AM et al (2012) Reliability of quantitative MRI methods in the assessment of spinal canal stenosis and cord compression in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38:1. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182672307

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nouri A, Tetreault L, Zamorano JJ et al (2015) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting surgical outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:171–178. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000678

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, 3700 Reservoir Road NW, 7 PHC, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Steven Spitz, Daniel Felbaum, Nima Aghdam & Faheem Sandhu

Authors
  1. Steven Spitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Felbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nima Aghdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Faheem Sandhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Felbaum.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spitz, S., Felbaum, D., Aghdam, N. et al. Delayed postoperative C5 root palsy and the use of neurophysiologic monitoring. Eur Spine J 24, 2866–2871 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4252-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4252-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation