Correction to: Is the new ASNM intraoperative neuromonitoring supervision "guideline" a trustworthy guideline? A commentary.

The article Is the new ASNM intraoperative neuromonitoring supervision "guideline" a trustworthy guideline? A commentary, written by Stanley A. Skinner, Elif Ilgaz Aydinlar, Lawrence F. Borges, Bob S. Carter, Bradford L. Currier, Vedran Deletis, Charles Dong, John Paul Dormans, Gea Drost, Isabel Fernandez­Conejero, E. Matthew Hoffman, Robert N. Holdefer, Paulo Andre Teixeira Kimaid, Antoun Koht, Karl F. Kothbauer, David B. MacDonald, John J. McAuliffe III, David E. Morledge, Susan H. Morris, Jonathan Norton, Klaus Novak, Kyung Seok Park, Joseph H. Perra, Julian Prell, David M. Rippe, Francesco Sala, Daniel M. Schwartz, Martín J. Segura, Kathleen Seidel, Christoph Seubert, Mirela V. Simon, Francisco Soto, Jeffrey A. Strommen, Andrea Szelenyi, Armando Tello, Sedat Ulkatan, Javier Urriza and Marshall Wilkinson, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 05 January 2019 without open access. With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 30 January 2019 to © The Author(s) 2019 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The original article has been corrected.

Spinal cord injury from electrocautery: observations in a porcine model using electromyography and motor evoked potentials.

We have previously investigated electromyographic (EMG) and transcranial motor evoked potential (MEP) abnormalities after mechanical spinal cord injury. We now report thermally generated porcine spinal cord injury, characterized by spinal cord generated hindlimb EMG injury activity and spinal cord motor conduction block (MEP loss). Electrocautery (EC) was delivered to thoracic level dural root sleeves within 6-8 mm of the spinal cord (n = 6). Temperature recordings were made near the spinal cord. EMG and MEP were recorded by multiple gluteobiceps intramuscular electrodes before, during, and after EC. Duration of EC was titrated to an end-point of spinal motor conduction block (MEP loss). In 5/6 roots, ipsilateral EMG injury activity was induced by EC. In 4/5 roots, EMG injury activity was identified before MEP loss. In all roots, a minimum of 20 s EC and a temperature maximum of at least 57 °C at the dural root sleeve were required to induce MEP loss. Unexpectedly, conduction block was preceded by an enhanced MEP in 4/6 trials. EMG injury activity, preceding MEP loss, can be seen during near spinal cord EC. Depolarization and facilitation of lumbar motor neurons by thermally excited descending spinal tracts likely explains both hindlimb EMG and an enhanced MEP signal (seen before conduction block) respectively. A thermal mechanism may play a role in some unexplained MEP losses during intraoperative monitoring. EMG recordings might help to detect abnormal discharges and forewarn the monitorist during both mechanical and thermal injury to the spinal cord.

Threshold testing of lumbosacral pedicle screws: a reappraisal.

Older reports of unmonitored pedicle screw implantation during spine decompression/fusion suggest a low but finite additional clinical risk when compared with decompression/fusion without the use of pedicle screws. Intraoperative and/or postoperative computed tomography imaging has advanced our understanding of the key spatial relationships between screws, pedicle wall, and nerve roots. These combined data underpin and background reported series of monitored pedicle screw insertion. "Predicates" for well-done pedicle screw threshold test recordings are based on these data and newer knowledge of proper free-run and stimulated electromyography technique. The sum of the evidence indicates a continuous (rather than dichotomous) relationship between pedicle screw threshold test sensitivity versus specificity for breach. Also, there is a dubious connection between breach and clinical risk. Therefore, in the setting of healthy root and bone, it is suggested that alerts should be restricted to the lowest (most-specific) range of pedicle screw threshold test results.