Should Somatosensory and Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring Be Used Routinely in All Posterior Cervical Operations for Degenerative Conditions of the Cervical Spine?

OBJECTIVE: Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) is useful during spinal cord operations, but whether IONM is necessary for posterior cervical surgeries for degenerative conditions is unknown. We evaluated the utility of somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring as a tool for predicting new postoperative neurologic deficits during posterior decompression and fusion for degenerative cervical spine conditions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed posterior cervical operations performed at our institute over a 4-year period. Patients with postoperative neurologic deficits were identified, and a detailed analysis performed to ascertain whether SSEP or MEP monitoring accurately predicted the onset of new postoperative deficits. RESULTS: Overall, 498 patients were included in the analysis (median age 66 years; range: 22-93 years). SSEP monitoring was performed in all patients, and both SSEP and MEP monitoring were performed in 121 patients (24%). Twenty-one patients (4.2%) had new postoperative neurologic deficits. SSEP had significantly higher specificity (90%) but lower sensitivity (33%) than MEP (74% specificity [P = 0.008], 50% sensitivity [P = 0.01]) for detecting neurologic compromise intraoperatively. For SSEP, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) in detecting intraoperative changes that translated to new postoperative neurological deficits were 12% and 97%, respectively, whereas for MEP, the PPV and NPV were 6% (P = 0.009) and 98% (P = 0.20), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IONM during posterior cervical operations for degenerative conditions of the spine is not reliable at predicting new postoperative neurologic deficits in patients treated for degenerative conditions, but may provide peace of mind to the surgeon intraoperatively when no abnormalities are detected.

Coronal balance with circumferential minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis: are we leaning in the right direction?

OBJECTIVE: Coronal malalignment (CM) in adult spinal deformity is associated with poor outcomes and remains underappreciated in the literature. Recent attempts at classifying CM indicate that some coronal shifts may be more difficult to treat than others. To date, outcomes for circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS) of the spine in the context of these new CM classifications are unreported. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of patients with degenerative scoliosis (Cobb angle > 20°) consecutively treated with cMIS at a single institution was performed. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative standing radiographs were used to make the comparisons. Clinical outcome measures were compared. Patients were subgrouped according to the preoperative distance between their C7 plumb line and central sacral vertical line (C7-CSVL) as either coronally aligned (type A, C7-CSVL < 3 cm); shifted ≥ 3 cm toward the concavity (type B); or shifted ≥ 3 cm toward the convexity (type C) of the main lumbar curve. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included (mean age 67.7 years). Twenty-six patients (62%) were classified as type A, 5 patients (12%) as type B, and 11 patients (26%) as type C. An average of 4.9 segments were treated. No type A patients developed postoperative CM. All type B patients had CM correction. Six of the 11 type C patients had CM after surgery. Overall, there was an improvement in the C7-CSVL (from 2.4 to 1.8 cm, p = 0.04). Among subgroups, only type B patients improved (from 4.5 to 0.8 cm, p = 0.002); no difference was seen for type A patients (from 1.2 to 1.4 cm, p = 0.32) or type C patients (from 4.3 to 3.1 cm, p = 0.11). Comparing type C patients with postoperative CM versus those without postoperative CM, patients with CM had worse visual analog scale back scores at 1 year (5 vs 1, p = 0.01). Moreover, they had higher postoperative L4 tilt angles (11° vs 5°, p = 0.01), indicating inadequate correction of the lumbosacral fractional curve. CONCLUSIONS: cMIS improved coronal alignment, curve magnitudes, and clinical outcomes among patients with degenerative scoliosis. It did not result in CM in type A patients and was successful at improving the C7-CSVL in type B patients. Type C patients remain the most difficult to treat coronally, with worse visual analog scale back pain scores in those with postoperative CM. Regional coronal restoration of the lumbosacral fracture curve should be the focus of correction in cMIS for these patients.