Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Spinal Cord Monitoring With Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Patients With Neural Axis Abnormalities Undergoing Spinal Deformity Surgery

  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

_

Study Design: Retrospective, case-control study.

Objectives

To report the effectiveness of transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs) in patients undergoing scoliosis surgery with neural axis abnormalities (NAAs).

Summary of Background Data

Transcranial motor evoked potentials are a safe and sensitive modality to identify impending spinal cord injury in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Previous studies have analyzed somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and neurogenic motor evoked potentials in NAA patients, but to our knowledge, no study has addressed the use of TcMEPs in these patients.

Methods

We performed an institutional review board—approved retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients with NAA at a single institution and compared them with a consecutive series of AIS patients undergoing scoliosis surgery with spinal cord monitoring using TcMEP and SSEP We compared the ability to obtain baseline data and the incidence of critical changes in TcMEPs and SSEPs between groups and examined a correlation with postoperative neurologic deficits.

Results

We compared 38 patients with NAA (15 Chiari malformations, 12 syrinx, 7 tethered cords, and 4 spinal cord tumors) with 184 patients with AIS. The age was similar and preoperative curve magnitude was greater in the NAA group. Good baseline data were obtained less frequently in the NAA group for TcMEPs (94.7% vs. 100%; p <.001) and SSEPs (89.5% vs. 100%; p <.001). There was no statistical difference in critical deviation from baseline in the NAA group for TcMEPs (3 of 38 [7.9%] vs. 5 of 184 [2.7%]; p =.120) or SSEPs (0 of 38 vs. 3 of 184 [1.6%] (p =.430). There were no postoperative neurologic deficits in the NAA or AIS group.

Conclusions

The ability to obtain baseline spinal cord monitoring in patients with NAA approaches that of an AIS group and accurately identifies impending neurologic deficits with high sensitivity. Surgeons should be confident that TcMEP baseline data can be obtained in patients with spinal cord pathology and should trust critical changes in TcMEPs intraoperatively to prevent spinal cord injury.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huebert HT, MacKinnon WB. Syringomyelia and scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1969;51:338–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. MacEwen 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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nordwall A, Wikkelso C. A late neurologic complication of scoliosis surgery in connection with syringomyelia. Acta Orthop Scand 1979;50:407–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Potenza V, Weinstein SL, Neyt JG. Dysfunction of the spinal cord during spinal arthrodesis for scoliosis: recommendations for early detection and treatment. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:1679–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams B. Orthopaedic features in the presentation of syringomyelia. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1979;61:314–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. El-Hawary R, Sucato DJ, Sparagana S, et al. Spinal cord monitoring in patients with spinal deformity and neural axis abnormalities: a comparison with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:E698–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lubicky JP, Spadaro JA, Yuan HA, et al. Variability of somatosensory cortical evoked potential monitoring during spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989;14:790–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Noordeen MH, Taylor BA, Edgar MA. Syringomyelia: a potential risk factor in scoliosis surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994;19:1406–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson-Holden TJ, Padberg AM, Lenke LG, et al. Efficacy of intraoperative monitoring for pediatric patients with spinal cord pathology undergoing spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:1685–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Langeloo DD, Lelivelt A, Louis Journee H, et al. Transcranial electrical motor-evoked potential monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity: a study of 145 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1043–50.

    Google Scholar 

  11. MacDonald DB, Al Zayed Z, Khoudeir I, et al. Monitoring scoliosis surgery with combined multiple pulse transcranial electric motor and cortical somatosensory-evoked potentials from the lower and upper extremities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Neurology 2012;78:585–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pastorelli F, Di Silvestre M, Plasmati R, et al. The prevention of neural complications in the surgical treatment of scoliosis: the role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring. Eur Spine J 2011;20(Suppl 1):S105–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP, et al. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:2440–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pereon Y, Nguyen The Tich S, Delecrin J, et al. Combined spinal cord monitoring using neurogenic mixed evoked potentials and collision techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:1571–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Toleikis JR, Skelly JP, Carlvin AO, et al. The usefulness of electrical stimulation for assessing pedicle screw placements. J Spinal Disord 2000;13:283–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Burke D, Hicks R, Stephen J, et al. Assessment of corticospinal and somatosensory conduction simultaneously during scoliosis surgery. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992;85:388–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. DiCindio S, Theroux M, Shah S, et al. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1851–5. discussion 5–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan D. Muchow MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Muchow, R.D., McClung, A., Rampy, P. et al. Spinal Cord Monitoring With Transcranial Motor Evoked Potentials in Patients With Neural Axis Abnormalities Undergoing Spinal Deformity Surgery. Spine Deform 1, 205–210 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.02.002

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2013.02.002

Keywords

Navigation