Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prognosis of Significant Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring Events in Severe Spinal Deformity Surgery

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

Abstract

Background

Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring has become a standard tool for mitigating neurologic injury during spinal deformity surgery. Significant monitoring changes during deformity correction are relatively uncommon. This study characterizes precipitating factors for neurologic injury and relates significant events and postoperative neurologic prognosis.

Methods

All spinal deformity surgeries at a West African hospital over a 12-month period were reviewed. Patients were included if complete operative reports, monitoring data, and postoperative neurologic examinations were available for review. Surgical and systemic triggers of monitoring events were recorded and neurologic status was followed for 6 weeks postoperatively.

Results

Eighty-eight patients met inclusion criteria. The average age was 14 years (3–28). The average kyphosis was 108° (54°–176°) and average scoliosis was 100° (48°–177°). There were 44 separate neurologic events in 34 patients (39%). The most common triggers were traction or positioning (16), posterior column osteotomies/vertebral column resections (9/1), and distraction, corrective maneuvers, or implant placement (12). On surgery completion, 100% (12/12) of events from non-osteotomy-related surgical procedures, 75% (12/16) of events from traction or positioning resolved; however, 0% (0/10) of events from osteotomies resolved completely. Eight percent (7/88) had new neurologic deficits postoperatively, all with intraoperative monitoring changes. In 6 of these 7 patients, the event was attributed to an osteotomy; in 1 patient the cause was not determined. At 6-week follow-up, all patients had some preserved motor function bilaterally with the ability to walk (ASIA D/E) or recovered completely.

Conclusions

Intraoperative signal changes were most frequently from traction or positioning. However, the most common cause of persistent neurologic deterioration and the only cause of postoperative neurologic deficit was the performance of osteotomies. Unlike traction- or instrument-related correction, osteotomies produce irreversible changes, from canal intrusion or sudden localized deformity change. The incidence of postoperative neurologic deficit is very low when the inciting cause is reversed; however, osteotomy-related events are irreversible, with a high incidence of associated lasting neurologic injury.

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. Owen JH. The application of intraoperative monitoring during surgery for spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999;24:2649–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:324–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Qiu Y, Wang S, Wang B, et al. Incidence and risk factors of neurological deficits of surgical correction for scoliosis: analysis of 1373 cases at one Chinese institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:519–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Raynor BL, Bright JD, Lenke LG, et al. Significant change or loss of intraoperative monitoring data: a 25-year experience in 12,375 spinal surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:E101–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Devlin VJ, Schwartz DM. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spinal surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007;15:549–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hsu B, Cree AK, Lagopoulos J, Cummine JL. Transcranial motor-evoked potentials combined with response recording through compound muscle action potential as the sole modality of spinal cord monitoring in spinal deformity surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008;33:1100–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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 

  9. 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 the lower and upper extremities. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Emerson RG. NIOM for spinal deformity surgery: there’s more than one way to skin a cat. J Clin Neurophysiol 2012;29:149–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ben-David B, Haller G, Taylor P. Anterior spinal fusion complicated by paraplegia. A case report of a false-negative somatosensory-evoked potential. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1987;12:536–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnston 2nd CE, Happel Jr LT, Norris R, et al. Delayed paraplegia complicating sublaminar segmental spinal instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68:556–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG, et al. 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 

  16. Hilibrand AS, Schwartz DM, Sethuraman V, et al. 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 

  17. 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 

  18. Kalkman CJ, Drummond JC, Kennelly NA, et al. Intraoperative monitoring of tibialis anterior muscle motor evoked responses to transcranial electrical stimulation during partial neuromuscular blockade. Anesth Analg 1992;75:584–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sekimoto K, Nishikawa K, Ishizeki J, et al. The effects of volatile anesthetics on intraoperative monitoring of myogenic motor-evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation and on partial neuromuscular blockade during propofol/fentanyl/nitrous oxide anesthesia in humans. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2006;18:106–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zentner J, Albrecht T, Heuser D. Influence of halothane, enflurane, and isoflurane on motor evoked potentials. Neurosurgery 1992;31:298–305.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kottenberg-Assenmacher E, Armbruster W, Bornfeld N, Peters J. Hypothermia does not alter somatosensory evoked potential amplitude and global cerebral oxygen extraction during marked sodium nitroprusside-induced arterial hypotension. Anesthesiology 2003;98:1112–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lall RR, Lall RR, Hauptman JS, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist. Neurosurg Focus 2012;33:E10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sala F, Dvorak J, Faccioli F. Cost effectiveness ofmultimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2007;16(Suppl 2):S229–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ney JP, van der Goes DN, Watanabe JH. Cost-benefit analysis: intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgeries. J Clin Neurophysiol 2013;30:280–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. 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 (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;23:1392–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Der Walt JJN, Thomas JM, Figaji AA. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for the anaesthetist. South Afr J Anesth Analg 2013;19:139–44.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lewis SJ, Gray R, Holmes LM, et al. Neurophysiological changes in deformity correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with intraoperative skull-femoral traction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36:1627–38.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vitale MG, Moore DW, Matsumoto H, et al. Risk factors for spinal cord injury during surgery for spinal deformity. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Azabou E, Manel V, Andre-obadia N, et al. Optimal parameters of transcranial electrical stimulation for intraoperative monitoring of motor evoked potentials of the tibialis anterior muscle during pediatric scoliosis surgery. Neurophysiol Clin 2013;43:243–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Feng B, Qiu G, Shen J, et al. Impact of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during surgery for spine deformity and potential risk factors for neurological monitoring changes. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012;25:E108–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ferguson J, Hwang SW, Tataryn Z, Samdani AF. Neuromonitoring changes in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a single-institution experience. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2014;13:247–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Thuet ED, Winscher JC, Padberg AM, et al. Validity and reliability of intraoperative monitoring in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: a 23-year experience of 3436 surgical cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:1880–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Eager M, Shimer A, Jahangiri FR, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM): lessons learned from 32 case events in 2069 spine cases. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 2011;51:247–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ben-David B, Taylor PD, Haller GS. Posterior spinal fusion complicated by posterior column injury. A case report of a false-negative wake-up test. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1987;12:540–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 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;14:1571–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Holland NR, Lukaczyk TA, Riley IIIrd LH, et al. Higher electrical stimulus intensities are required to activate chronically compressed nerve roots. Implications for intraoperative electromyographic pedicle screw testing. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998;2:224–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ziewacz JE, Berven SH, Mummaneni VP, et al. The design, development, and implementation of a checklist for intraoperative neuromonitoring changes. Neurosurg Focus 2012;33:E11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mostegl A, Bauer R, Eichenauer M. Intraoperative somatosensory potential monitoring. A clinical analysis of 127 surgical procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988;13:396–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Benjamin T. Bjerke MD, MS, Venu M. Nemani MD, PhD, Ronald G. Emerson MD & Han Jo Kim MD

  2. FOCOS Hospital, P.O. Box KD 779 Kanda, Accra, Ghana

    Daniel M. Zuchelli BS & Oheneba Boachie-Adjei MD

Authors
  1. Benjamin T. Bjerke MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel M. Zuchelli BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Venu M. Nemani MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald G. Emerson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Han Jo Kim MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Oheneba Boachie-Adjei MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin T. Bjerke MD, MS.

Additional information

Author disclosures

BTB (none); DMZ (none); VMN (none); RGE (none); HJK (reports personal fees from Zimmerbiomet, personal fees from K2M, outside the submitted work); OB-A (none). None of the authors received payments or services, either directly or indirectly (ie, via his or her institution), from a third party in support of any aspect of this work. None of the authors, or their institution(s), have had any financial relationship, in the thirty-six months prior to submission of this work, with any entity in the biomedical arena that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work. Also, no author has had any other relationships, or has engaged in any other activities, that could be perceived to influence or have the potential to influence what is written in this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bjerke, B.T., Zuchelli, D.M., Nemani, V.M. et al. Prognosis of Significant Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring Events in Severe Spinal Deformity Surgery. Spine Deform 5, 117–123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.11.002

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspd.2016.11.002

Keywords

Search

Navigation