Utility of Motor and Somatosensory Evoked Potentials for Neural Thermoprotection in Ablations of Musculoskeletal Tumors.

PURPOSE: To characterize the utility of monitoring transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials (TCeMEPs) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) for neural thermoprotection during musculoskeletal tumor ablations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 29 patients (16 male; median age, 46 y; range, 7-77 y) who underwent musculoskeletal tumor radiofrequency ablation (n = 8) or cryoablation (n = 22) with intraprocedural TCeMEP and SSEP monitoring was performed. The most common tumor histologies were osteoid osteoma (n = 6), venous malformation (n = 5), sarcoma (n = 5), renal cell carcinoma (n = 4), and non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 3). The most common tumor sites were spine (n = 22) and lower extremities (n = 4). Abnormal TCeMEP change was defined by 100-V increase above baseline threshold activation for a given myotome; abnormal SSEP change was defined by 60% reduction in baseline amplitude and/or 10% increase in latency. RESULTS: Abnormal changes in TCeMEP (n = 9; 30%) and/or SSEP (n = 5; 17%) occurred in 12 procedures (40%) and did not recover in 5 patients. Patients with unchanged TCeMEP/SSEP activities throughout the procedure (n = 18) did not have motor or sensory symptoms after the procedure; 3 (60%) with unrecovered activity changes and 2 (29%) with transient activity changes had new motor (n = 1) or sensory (n = 4) symptoms. Relative risk for neurologic sequelae for patients with unrecovered TCeMEP/SSEP changes vs those with transient or no changes was 7.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.66-33.9; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal activity changes of TCeMEP or SSEP during percutaneous ablative procedures correlate with postprocedural neurologic sequelae.

Failure of Intraoperative Monitoring to Detect Postoperative Neurologic Deficits: A 25-year Experience in 12,375 Spinal Surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to categorize and evaluate intraoperative monitoring (IOM) failure to detect neurologic deficits occurring during spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of spinal cord/nerve root monitoring regarding undetected neurologic deficits is examined in a large, single institution series involving all levels of the spinal column and all spinal surgical procedures. METHODS: Multimodality IOM included somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs), descending neurogenic-evoked potentials (DNEPs), transcranial motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), dermatomal somatosensory-evoked potentials (DSEPs), and spontaneous and triggered electromyography (spEMG, trgEMG). We reviewed 12,375 patients who underwent surgery for spinal pathology from 1985 to 2010. There were 7178 females (59.3%) and 5197 males (40.7%); 9633 (77.8%) primary surgeries and 2742 (22.2%) revisions. Procedures by spinal level were cervical 29.7% (3671), thoracic/thoracolumbar 45.4% (5624), and lumbosacral 24.9% (3080). Age at surgery was > 18 years - 72.7% (8993) and < 18 years - 27.3% (3382). RESULTS: Forty-five of the 12,375 patients (0.36%) had false negative outcomes. False negative results by modality were as follows: spEMG (n = 22, 48.8%), trgEMG (n = 8, 17.7%), DSEP (n = 4, 8.8%), DNEP (n = 4, 8.8%), SSEP (n = 3, 6.6%), DSEP/spEMG (n = 3, 6.6%), and trgEMG/spEMG (n = 1, 2.2%). Thirty-seven patients had immediate postoperative deficits unidentified by IOM; 30 patients (81%) involved nerve root monitoring, four patients had spinal cord deficits, and three patients had peripheral sensory deficits. Eight patients had permanent neurologic deficits, six (0.048%) were nerve root and two (0.016%) were spinal cord in nature. CONCLUSION: Despite correct application and usage, IOM data failed to identify 45 (0.36%) patients with false negative outcomes out of 12,375 surgical patients. Eight patients (0.064%) of these 45 patients had permanent neurologic deficits, six patients had nerve root deficits in nature and two patients had spinal cord deficits. Although admittedly small, this represents the risk of undetected neurologic deficits even when properly using IOM. Deficits are at a higher risk to remain unresolved when not detected by IOM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Significant change or loss of intraoperative monitoring data: a 25-year experience in 12,375 spinal surgeries.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the spectrum of intraoperative events responsible for a loss or significant change in intraoperative monitoring (IOM) data. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The efficacy of spinal cord/nerve root monitoring is demonstrated in a large, single institution series of patients, involving all levels of the spinal column (occiput to sacrum) and all spinal surgical procedures. METHODS: Multimodality IOM included somatosensory-evoked potentials, descending neurogenic-evoked potentials, neurogenic motor-evoked potentials, and spontaneous and triggered electromyography. A total of 12,375 patients who underwent surgery for spinal pathology between January 1985 and December 2010 were reviewed. There were 59.3% female patients (7178) and 40.7% male patients (5197). Procedures by spinal level were as follows: cervical 29.7% (3671), thoracic/thoracolumbar 45.4% (5624), and lumbosacral 24.9% (3080). Age at the time of surgery was as follows: older than 18 years, 72.7% (242/8993) and younger than 18 years, 27.3% (144/3382). A total of 77.8% (9633) patients underwent primary surgical procedures and 22.2% (2742) patients underwent revision surgical procedures. RESULTS: A total of 406 instances of IOM data change/loss occurred in 386 of 12,375 (3.1%) patients. Causes for data degradation/loss included the following: instrumentation (n = 131), positioning (n = 85), correction (n = 56), systemic (n = 49), unknown (n = 24), and focal spinal cord compression (n = 15). Data loss/change was seen in revision (6.1%/167 patients) surgical procedures more commonly than in primary procedures (2.3%/219 patients; P < 0.0001). Data improvement was demonstrated by 88.7% (n = 360) after intervention versus 11.3% (n = 46) with no improvement in IOM data. One patient with improved data after intervention versus 14 with no improvement despite intervention had a permanent neurological deficit (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IOM data identified 386 (3.1%) patients with loss/degradation of data in 12,375 spinal surgical procedures. Fortunately, in 93.3% of patients, intervention led to data recovery and no neurological deficits. Reduction from a potential (worst-case scenario) 3.1% (386) of patients with significant change/loss of IOM data to a permanent neurological deficit rate of 0.12% (15) patients was achieved (P < 0.0001), thus confirming efficacy of IOM.

Correlation between low triggered electromyographic thresholds and lumbar pedicle screw malposition: analysis of 4857 screws.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of 1078 spinal surgical procedures with lumbar pedicle screw placement at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: Based on previously established normative values, triggered electromyographic stimulation (TrgEMG) was re-examined to evaluate its efficacy in determining screw malposition. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Threshold values for confirmation of intraosseous placement of pedicle screws with EMG stimulation is controversial. METHODS: TrgEMG threshold values for 4857 pedicle screws placed from L2 to S1 from 1996 to 2005 were analyzed. An ascending method of constant current stimulation was applied to each pedicle screw to obtain a compound muscle action potential (CMAP) from lower extremity myotomes. Previously determined threshold value normative data from a published clinical series of 233 screws were as follows: 0 to 4 mA, high likelihood of pedicle wall breach; 4 to 8 mA, possible pedicle wall breach; >8 mA, no pedicle wall defect. RESULTS: A total of 7.74% (376 of 4857) of all screws tested had threshold values <8.0 mA. A total of 19.1% (72 of 376) of these were <4.0 mA: 54% (39 of 72) were repositioned (26) or removed (13) while the remaining 33 screws were left in place following repalpation. A total of 80.9% (304 of 376) had thresholds between 4 and 8 mA: 17.4% (53) were repositioned (38) or removed (15). Nine screws had thresholds of 8.0 mA, 17.4% for 4.0 to 8.0 mA, 54.2% for <4.0 mA, and 100% for <2.8 mA. At 2.8 mA, triggered EMG has a specificity of 100%, with sensitivity of 8.4%; at 4.0 mA, specificity of 99% and sensitivity of 36%; and at 8.0 mA, 94% specificity and 86% sensitivity. TrgEMG is an adjunct technique and should always be used in conjunction with palpation and radiography to optimize safe pedicle screw placement.

Increased risk of postoperative neurologic deficit for spinal surgery patients with unobtainable intraoperative evoked potential data.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study of 4,310 patients undergoing spinal surgery between 1994 and 2003. OBJECTIVES: To examine the incidence and potential causality of unobtainable somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and neurogenic mixed evoked potential (NMEP) data for a population of spinal surgery patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with absent or unobtainable evoked potential data may increase the risk of undetected neurologic injury. To date, a comprehensive review of this patient population has not been reported. METHODS: A total of 4,310 consecutive orthopedic spinal surgeries at one institution from January 1994 through December 2003 were reviewed. Cases lacking sufficient monitoring data, despite functional neural integrity (ambulators, intact sensation), were identified. Diagnoses were divided into six general categories. The association between absent evoked potential data and associated neurologic and/or medical pathology was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 59 of 4,310 cases (1.37%) had absent SSEP and/or NMEP intraoperative data despite functional neural integrity (44 ambulators/15 nonambulators)" 5.08% of study patients awoke with increased neurologic deficit (3 of 59), 2 global deficits, and 1 nerve root deficit. The incidence of postoperative neurologic deficit in the entire surgical population was 0.77% (33 of 4,310), 8 global (0.19%), and 25 nerve root deficits (0.058%). A Fisher's exact test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the incidence in these two populations (P = 0.0121) and the incidence of global paraplegic deficits (P = 0.0075). CONCLUSION: Patients with unobtainable data pose a much higher risk (P = 0.0121) for postoperative neurologic deficits. Multiple Stagnara wake-up tests are strongly recommended when evoked potential data cannot be obtained.

Can triggered electromyograph thresholds predict safe thoracic pedicle screw placement?

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective clinical study of thoracic pedicle screws monitored with triggered electromyographic testing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of recording rectus abdominis triggered electromyographs to assess thoracic screw placement. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Triggered electromyographic testing from lower extremity myotomes has identified medially placed lumbar pedicle screws. Higher thresholds indicate intraosseous placement because of increased resistance to current flow. Lower thresholds correspond to compromised pedicles with potential for nerve impingement. No clinical study has correlated an identical technique with rectus muscle recordings, which are innervated from T6 to T12. METHODS: A total of 677 thoracic screws were placed in 92 consecutive patients. Screws placed from T6 and T12 were evaluated using an ascending method of stimulation until a compound muscle action potential was obtained from the rectus abdominis. Threshold values were compared both in absolute terms and also in relation to other intrapatient values. RESULTS: Screws were separated into three groups: Group A (n = 650 screws) had thresholds >6.0 mA and intraosseus placement. Group B (n = 21) had thresholds <6.0 mA but an intact medial pedicle border on reexamination and radiographic confirmation. Group C (n = 6) had thresholds <6.0 mA and medial wall perforations confirmed by tactile and/or visual inspection. Thus, 3.9% (27 of 677) of all screws had thresholds <6.0 mA. Only 22% (6 of 27) had medial perforation. Group B screws averaged a 54% decrease from the mean as compared with a 69% decrease for Group C screws (P = 0.0160). There were no postoperative neurologic deficits or radicular chest wall complaints. CONCLUSION: To assess thoracic pedicle screw placement, triggered electromyographic thresholds <6.0 mA, coupled with values 60-65% decreased from the mean of all other thresholds in a given patient, should alert the surgeon to suspect a medial pedicle wall breach.