Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Triggered electromyography (tEMG) in the lumbar spine It́s reliable? Correlation of tEMG with postoperative CT images in lumbar instrumentation. / Electromiografía evocada (tEMG) en la columna lumbar. ¿Es confiable? Correlación de tEMG con imágenes de TC posoperatorias en la instrumentación lumbar.
Beaulieu Lalanne, L; Larrondo Carmona, R; Alvarez Lemos, F; Oelker Behn, C; Cáceres Copetta, M; Muñoz Wilson, J T; Beaulieu Montoya, A M; Larrondo Martinez, V.
Afiliação
  • Beaulieu Lalanne L; Departamento de Cirugía de Columna, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Larrondo Carmona R; Departamento de Cirugía de Columna, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Alvarez Lemos F; Departamento de Cirugía de Columna, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile. Electronic address: facundoalemos@gmail.com.
  • Oelker Behn C; Departamento de Neurología Electrofisiológica, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Cáceres Copetta M; Departamento de Neurología Electrofisiológica, Clínica Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Muñoz Wilson JT; Departamento de Ortopedia y Traumatología, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Beaulieu Montoya AM; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
  • Larrondo Martinez V; Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile.
Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol ; 66(2): 143-148, 2022.
Article em En, Es | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35404792
INTRODUCTION: Instrumentation with pedicle screws (PS) can compromise the adjacent neural structures. Triggered electromyography (tEMG) is a modality of intraoperative neuromonitoring, used to assist in the placement of these. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the reliability of this tool. METHOD: Retrospective review of patients underwent posterior lumbar fusions from January 2017 to December 2019, correlating postoperative CT images (postop CT) with tEMG results for each PS with a threshold of 10mA, establishing sensitivity and specificity of this tool. Diagnostic test and receiver operating characteristic curve were performed to evaluate the area under the curve. RESULT: A total of 275 PS were evaluated between L1 to S1; 5 PS showed concordance for an inadequate trajectory, while 10PS, with tEMG <10mA, were correctly positioned. The postoperative CT identified 17 pedicle gaps not noticed by the tEMG. Sensitivity and specificity were 23% (95% CI: 8-45) and 96% (95% CI: 93-98), respectively, with a PPV of 33.3% and a NPV of 93.6%. The area under the curve was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.86) with a cut-off point of 24mA, showing a sensitivity of 77% (95% CI: 0.55-0.92) and specificity of 69% (95% CI: 0.63-0.75). CONCLUSION: Given its low sensitivity, we do not recommend tEMG as the sole test in the verification of PS. We recommend using a cut-off point ≤8mA as it demonstrated the highest levels of sensitivity and specificity. We do not recommend using high thresholds to increase sensitivity.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En / Es Revista: Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Chile País de publicação: Espanha

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En / Es Revista: Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Chile País de publicação: Espanha