ABSTRACT
Transcranial motor-evoked potentials (TcMEPs) are used to monitor the descending motor pathway during scoliosis surgery. By comparing potentials before and after correction, surgeons may prevent postoperative functional loss in distal muscles. There is currently no consensus as to which muscles should be monitored. The purpose of this study is to determine the least invasive monitoring protocol with the best localization of potential neurologic deficit. A retrospective review of 125 patients with TcMEP monitoring during surgery for thoracolumbar scoliosis between 2008 and 2015 was conducted. 18 patients had postoperative neurologic consult due to deficit. The remaining 107 patients were a consecutive cohort without postoperative neurologic consult. TcMEPs were recorded from vastus lateralis (VL), tibialis anterior (TA), peroneus longus (PL), adductor hallucis (AH) and abductor pollicis brevis (APB) bilaterally. The effectiveness of each muscle combination was evaluated independently and then compared to other combinations using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Monitoring of VL, TA, PL, and AH yielded sensitivity of 77.8% and specificity of 92.5% (AIC=66.7). Monitoring of TA, PL and AH yielded sensitivity of 77.8% and specificity of 94.4% (AIC=62.4). Monitoring of VL, TA and PL yielded sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 93.5% (AIC=70.1). Monitoring of TA and PL yielded sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 96.3% (AIC=63.9). TcMEP monitoring of TA, PL, and AH provided the highest sensitivity and specificity and best predictive power for postoperative lower extremity weakness.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lidocaine has emerged as a useful adjuvant anesthetic agent for cases requiring intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs). A previous retrospective study suggested that lidocaine could be used as a component of propofol-based intravenous anesthesia without adversely affecting MEP or SSEP monitoring, but did not address the effect of the addition of lidocaine on the MEP and SSEP signals of individual patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the intrapatient effects of the addition of lidocaine to balanced anesthesia on MEPs and SSEPs during multilevel posterior spinal fusion. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective, two-treatment, two-period crossover randomized controlled trial with a blinded primary outcome assessment. PATIENT SAMPLE: Forty patients undergoing multilevel posterior spinal fusion were studied. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were MEP voltage thresholds and SSEP amplitudes. Secondary outcome measures included isoflurane concentrations and hemodynamic parameters. METHODS: Each participant received two anesthetic treatments (propofol 50 mcg/kg/h and propofol 25 mcg/kg/h+lidocaine 1 mg/kg/h) along with isoflurane, ketamine, and diazepam. In this manner, each patient served as his or her own control. The order of administration of the two treatments was determined randomly. RESULTS: There were no significant within-patient differences between MEP threshold voltages or SSEP amplitudes during the two anesthetic treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine may be used as a component of balanced anesthesia during multilevel spinal fusions without adversely affecting the monitoring of SSEPs or MEPs in individual patients.
