Characteristics of multi-channel Br(E)-MsEP waveforms for the lower extremity muscles in thoracic spine surgery: comparison based on preoperative motor status
To evaluate the characteristics of brain-evoked muscle action potential [Br(E)-MsEP] waveforms of lower limb muscles in thoracic spine surgery.
The subjects were 159 patients who underwent thoracic spine surgery with intraoperative Br(E)-MsEP monitoring from January 2009 to December 2015, using a total of 2226 muscles in the extremities. The waveform derivation rate for each lower extremity muscle was examined at baseline and intraoperatively. Data were interpreted based on the preoperative motor status.
The preoperative ambulatory and non-ambulatory rates were 38% (60/159, McCormick grades I and II) and 62% (99/159, grades III–V), respectively. Eleven cases (all non-ambulatory) had undetectable baseline waveforms in all muscles, and in 19 cases (12%) a baseline waveform could only be derived from the abductor hallucis (AH). The waveform derivation rate in all lower limb muscles was significantly higher in ambulatory cases (p < 0.05), and the rates for the AH were the highest in both groups (p < 0.05). Postoperative paralysis occurred in 31 cases (19%). A decrease in intraoperative amplitude of ≥ 70% from baseline occurred in 54 cases and had sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 82% for prediction of postoperative motor deficit.
This is the first study of Br(E)-MsEP waveforms for each lower limb muscle based on preoperative ambulatory status. Detection of waveforms from distal muscles was still possible in a case with preoperative motor deficit, and the AH had an especially high derivation rate, even in cases with preoperative muscle weakness. Collectively, the results support use of Br(E)-MsEP monitoring using the AH in the lower extremities.
KeywordsBr(E)-MsEP Lower limb muscle Thoracic surgery Waveform change Abductor hallucis
Funding was from institutional sources only.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any potential conflict of interest.
- 1.Hamilton DK, Smith JS, Sansur CA et al (2011) Scoliosis Research Society Morbidity and Mortality Committee. 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 36:1218–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kobayashi K, Ando K, Yagi H et al (2017) Prevention and prediction of postoperative bowel bladder disorder using an anal plug electrode with Tc-MsEP monitoring during spine surgery. Nagoya J Med Sci 79:459–466Google Scholar
- 15.Kobayashi K, Ando K, Shinjo R et al (2018) A new criterion for the alarm point using a combination of waveform amplitude and onset latency in Br(E)-MsEP monitoring in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 27:1–7Google Scholar
- 17.Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K et al (2011) A multicenter study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. Sekizuikinou Shindangaku 33:116–123 (in Japanese) Google Scholar
- 19.Kobayashi S, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K et al (2014) 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 20:102–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Imagama S, Ando K, Kobayashi K et al (2017) Factors for a good surgical outcome in posterior decompression and dekyphotic corrective fusion with instrumentation for thoracic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: prospective single-center study. Oper Neurosurg 13:661–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Imagama S, Ando K, Ito Z et al (2016) Resection of beak-type thoracic ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament from a posterior approach under intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for paralysis after posterior decompression and fusion surgery. Global Spine J 6:812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Fujiwara Y, Sumida T, Manabe H et al (2011) The difference between spinal tract injury and segmental injury during intraoperative spinal cord monitoring using muscle evoked potentials. J Funct Diagn Spinal Cord 33:157–162Google Scholar
- 28.Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journée H et al (2003) Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients. Spine 28:1043–1050Google Scholar
- 32.Quiñones-Hinojosa A, Lyon R, Zada G et al (2005) Changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials during intramedullary spinal cord tumor resection correlate with postoperative motor function. Neurosurgery 56:982–993Google Scholar