ABSTRACT
Resumen: Las herramientas de evaluación de la gravedad en el enfermo grave proporcionan información objetiva intra e interobservador relacionada con la gravedad de la enfermedad, su evolución en relación al tiempo y la estratificación de riesgo son parte fundamental en la toma de decisiones. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar una nueva propuesta de la evaluación del APACHE II basada en un modelo matemático de cambio en el tiempo/velocidad, velocidad instantánea y aceleración.
Abstract: The illness severity scoring systems provide objetive measures for inter and intra comparisons with time, provide useful information for comparing the severity of illness are an essencial part of the improvment in clinical decisions and in stratifying patients. Appropiated application of these models helps in decision making at the right time. The aim of this paper is to submit a proposal for the evaluation of the APACHE II score based on a vectorial mathematical model of chance in time/velocity, instant velocity and aceleration.
Resumo: Os instrumentos de avaliação da gravidade do paciente grave fornecem informações objetivas intra e interobservadores relacionadas à gravidade da doença, sua evolução em relação ao tempo, estratificação de risco são fundamentais para tomada de decisão. O objetivo deste trabalho é apresentar uma nova proposta para a avaliação do APACHE II baseada em um modelo matemático de mudança de tempo/velocidade, velocidade instantânea e aceleração.
ABSTRACT
Introducción: La vigilancia neurofisiológica durante la cirugía de columna vertebral y de la médula espinal consiste en pruebas de potenciales evocados somatosensoriales, potenciales motores musculares, potenciales dermatomales y electromiografía. El riesgo de daño neurológico permanente después de una cirugía medular sin monitorización es significativo y el costo alto. El objetivo de la vigilancia neurofisiológica es identificar, prevenir y corregir de forma inmediata el daño neurológico que puede pasar inadvertido durante la cirugía de columna vertebral y médula espinal. Material y métodos: Estudio transversal, observacional y descriptivo de los pacientes sometidos a cirugía de columna entre 2007 y 2008 con vigilancia neurofisiológica transoperatoria. Resultados: La muestra estuvo integrada por 351 pacientes, 135 del sexo masculino (38.46 %) y 216 del femenino (61.54 %); 82 % correspondió a patología osteodiscal con o sin afectación medular, 12 % a etiología traumática, 4 % a corrección de escoliosis y 2 % a tumores medulares; por localización, 62.1 % a patología lumbar, 33 % a cervical, 4.3 % a nivel dorsal y 0.5 % a nivel sacro. El 12.4 % de los pacientes presentó mejoría de la respuesta basal de sus potenciales evocados somatosensoriales; 56.8 % los mantuvo similares a sus controles prequirúrgicos, 28.4 % requirió llamada de alerta al cirujano por riesgo de daño y 2.4 % caída severa de respuesta. En ningún caso hubo pérdida permanente. Conclusiones: La vigilancia neurofisiológica constituye una herramienta de gran valor que evita daños que pueden producirse durante esta cirugía.
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during spine surgery consists of several functional tests including somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), dermatomal potentials (DPs) and EMG (electromyography). Permanent neurological damage after spine surgery performed without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is frequent and often very costly. The main goal of IOM is the immediate detection, prevention and correction of neurological damage during surgery, which may go unnoticed without using these tests. METHODS: A total of 351 clinical files of patients with spinal surgery and continuous neurophysiological monitoring were transversally and descriptively reviewed from 2007 to 2008. RESULTS: There were 135 male patients (38.46%) and 216 female patients (61.54%); 82% of the cases were osteodiscal pathology with or without medullar involvement, 12% were patients with traumatic injuries, 4% with scoliosis and 2% had medullary tumors. Regarding localization, 62.1% were lumbar, 33% cervical, 4.3% thoracic and 0.5% sacral involvement; 12.4% of our cases showed significant improvement of the basal responses on SSEPs, and 56.8% showed no significant change during the procedure. In 28.4% of the cases, the surgical team had to be advised of potential neurological damage and in 2.4% there was absence of neurophysiological responses. No patient showed complete loss of any neurophysiological response. All patients reported clinical improvement after hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring may help avoid certain neurological risks during spine surgery, which may go unnoticed without the use of this technique.