Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Progressive Myelopathy Patients Who Lack Spinal Cord Monitoring Data Have the Highest Rate of Spinal Cord Deficits Following Posterior Vertebral Column Resection Surgery

  • Case Studies
  • Published:
Spine Deformity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The authors analyzed patients who underwent posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR). All patients had spinal cord monitoring (SCM) attempted but some did not have predictable and usable tracings.

Summary of Background Data

Posterior vertebral column resection is a powerful technique to correct severe spinal deformities but it has the potential for major neurologic complications. Spinal cord monitoring is extremely helpful in managing these difficult patients.

Methods

Spinal cord monitoring data, operative reports, charts, and radiographs of 112 consecutive adult and pediatric patients (mean age, 23.5 years; range, 5.8–74.0 years) who underwent PVCR were reviewed. All surgical procedures were performed between 2002 and 2010 by 1 surgeon at a single institution.

Results

Twenty patients (11 male, 9 female; mean age, 15.9 years) of 112 (17.9%) did not have detectable SCM tracings during surgery. Average preoperative and postoperative scoliosis for these 20 patients was 79.2° and 41.3°, respectively. Average preoperative and postoperative kyphosis was 106.6° and 59.8°, respectively. Thirteen of the 20 were revisions. Preoperative neurologic status included acute progressive myelopathy (n=9), no lower extremity function (n=6), chronic weak lower extremities (n=2), chronic quadriparesis (n= 1), and normal (n=2). Four of 9 patients with acute progressive myelopathy developed transient paraplegia postoperatively. They had angular kyphosis (mean, 116.3°) and 3 were revisions. Compared with the 92 patients who had obtainable intraoperative SCM and no spinal cord deficits, the risk of developing postoperative paraplegia in patients who had no SCM tracings was statistically higher (p =.0008). All 4 with spinal cord deficits after surgery regained varying degrees of lower extremity function and resumed ambulatory status at most recent follow-up.

Conclusions

The prevalence of unobtainable intraoperative SCM during PVCR was 17.9% (20 of 112). Postoperative transient paraplegia occurred exclusively in patients with no monitorable data as a result of angular kyphosis with acute progressive myelopathy. The rate of transient spinal cord deficits was significantly higher when there was no obtainable SCM (4 of 20 vs. 0 of 92 with SCM; p =.0008).

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. Suk SI, Chung ER, Lee SM, et al. Posterior vertebral column resection in fixed lumbosacral deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:E3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Suk SI, Chung ER, Kim JH, et al. Posterior vertebral column resection for severe rigid scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:1682–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Suk SI, Kim JH, Kim WJ, et al. Posterior vertebral column resection for severe spinal deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:2374–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lenke LG, O’Leary PT, Bridwell KH, et al. Posterior vertebral column resection for severe pediatric deformity: minimum two-year follow-up of thirty-five consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:2213–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lenke LG, Sides BA, Koester LA, et al. Vertebral column resection for the treatment of severe spinal deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:687–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheh G, Lenke LG, Padberg AM, et al. Loss of spinal cord monitoring signals in children during thoracic kyphosis correction with spinal osteotomy: why does it occur and what should you do? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:1093–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gunnarsson T, Krassioukov AV, Sarjeant R, et al. Real-time continuous intraoperative electromyographic and somatosensory evoked potential recordings in spinal surgery: correlation of clinical and electrophysiologic findings in a prospective, consecutive series of 213 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:677–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kamerlink JR, Errico T, Xavier S, et al. Major intraoperative neurologic monitoring deficits in consecutive pediatric and adult spinal deformity patients at one institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:240–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lieberman JA, Lyon R, Feiner J, et al. The efficacy of motor evoked potentials in fixed sagittal imbalance deformity correction surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:E3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Quraishi NA, Lewis SJ, Kelleher MO, et al. Intraoperative multimodality monitoring in adult spinal deformity: analysis of a prospective series of one hundred two cases with independent evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009;34:1504–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thuet ED, Padberg AM, Raynor BL, et al. Increased risk of postoperative neurologic deficit for spinal surgery patients with unobtainable intraoperative evoked potential data. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30:2094–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson-Holden TJ, Padberg AM, Parkinson JD, et al. A prospective comparison of neurogenic mixed evoked potential stimulation methods: utility of epidural elicitation during posterior spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:2364–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Padberg AM, Wilson-Holden TJ, Lenke LG, et al. Somatosensoryand motor-evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosis surgery: an accepted standard of care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1392–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Owen JH, Sponseller PD, Szymanski J, et al. Efficacy of multimodality spinal cord monitoring during surgery for neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1480–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ashkenaze D, Mudiyam R, Boachie-Adjei O, et al. Efficacy of spinal cord monitoring in neuromuscular scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18:1627–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Padberg AM, Russo MH, Lenke LG, et al. Validity and reliability of spinal cord monitoring in neuromuscular spinal deformity surgery. J Spinal Disord 1996;9:150–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keith RW, Stambough JL, Awender SH. Somatosensory cortical evoked potentials: a review of 100 cases of intraoperative spinal surgery monitoring. J Spinal Disord 1990;3:220–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Noordeen MH, Lee J, Gibbons CE, et al. Spinal cord monitoring in operations for neuromuscular scoliosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1997;79:53–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jarvis JG, Strantzas S, Lipkus M, et al. Responding to neuromonitoring changes in 3-column posterior spinal osteotomies for rigid pediatric spinal deformities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E3–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th Street, Box 1188, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Samuel K. Cho MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8233, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Lawrence G. Lenke MD, Lukas P. Zebala MD & Linda A. Koester BS

  3. Intraoperative Monitoring Service, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, One Barnes-Jewish Hospital Plaza, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA

    Shelly M. Bolon BS

  4. Regions Hospital, 640 Jackson St., St. Paul, MN, 55101, USA

    Matthew M. Kang MD

  5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Albert Einstein Medical Center, 5501 Old York Rd./WCB 4, Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA

    Joshua M. Pahys MD

  6. Department ofOrthopaedic Surgery, Albert EinsteinCollege of Medicine, Montefiore University Hospital, 3400 BainbridgeAve, 6th Fl., NewYork, NY, 10461, USA

    Woojin Cho MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Samuel K. Cho MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lawrence G. Lenke MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shelly M. Bolon BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew M. Kang MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lukas P. Zebala MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joshua M. Pahys MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Woojin Cho MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Linda A. Koester BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence G. Lenke MD.

Additional information

Author disclosures:SKC(none);LGL(patents from Medtronic (unpaid); consultant for DePuy Synthes Spine, K2M, Medtronic (monies donated to a charitable foundation); royalties from Medtronic, Quality Medical Publishing; reimbursement related to meetings/courses fromAOSpine, BroadWater, DePuy Synthes Spine, K2M, Medtronic, Scoliosis Research Society, Seattle Science Foundation, Stryker Spine, Spinal Research Foundation; The Department of Orthopaedic Surgery-Spine Service,Washington University, received grant money from Axial Biotech and DePuy Synthes Spine, Grant 2010-2015 (No. AR055176) from the National Institutes of Health, and grants from AOSpine, SRS, and Norton Healthcare, Louisville, KY (Scoli-RISK-1 study); philanthropic research funding from the Fox Family Foundation (Prospective Pediatric Spinal Deformity Study); and fellowship funding from AOSpine North America (funds/fellow year)); SMB (none); MMK (none); LPZ (none); JMP (none); WC (none); LAK (none).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cho, S.K., Lenke, L.G., Bolon, S.M. et al. Progressive Myelopathy Patients Who Lack Spinal Cord Monitoring Data Have the Highest Rate of Spinal Cord Deficits Following Posterior Vertebral Column Resection Surgery. Spine Deform 3, 352–359 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.11.009

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2014.11.009

Keywords

Search

Navigation