Cargando…

Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up

PURPOSE: In surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors (imSCT), distortion of the anatomy challenges the visual identification of dorsal columns (DC) for midline myelotomy. Dorsal column mapping (DCM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can identify DC neurophysiologically. We compare application a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ueberschaer, Moritz, Breitkopf, Katharina, Siller, Sebastian, Katzendobler, Sophie, Weller, Jonathan, Greve, Tobias, Zausinger, Stefan, Tonn, Joerg-Christian, Szelenyi, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624746/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36930366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05554-1
_version_ 1785130979951640576
author Ueberschaer, Moritz
Breitkopf, Katharina
Siller, Sebastian
Katzendobler, Sophie
Weller, Jonathan
Greve, Tobias
Zausinger, Stefan
Tonn, Joerg-Christian
Szelenyi, Andrea
author_facet Ueberschaer, Moritz
Breitkopf, Katharina
Siller, Sebastian
Katzendobler, Sophie
Weller, Jonathan
Greve, Tobias
Zausinger, Stefan
Tonn, Joerg-Christian
Szelenyi, Andrea
author_sort Ueberschaer, Moritz
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: In surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors (imSCT), distortion of the anatomy challenges the visual identification of dorsal columns (DC) for midline myelotomy. Dorsal column mapping (DCM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can identify DC neurophysiologically. We compare application and feasibility of both methods. METHODS: Patients with surgically treated imSCT were prospectively included between 04/2017 and 06/2019. The anatomical midline (AM) was marked. SSEPs at the DC after stimulation of tibial/median nerve with an 8-channel DCM electrode and cortical SSEP phase reversal at C3/C4 after SCS using a bipolar concentric probe were recorded. Procedural and technical aspects were compared. Standardized neurological examinations were performed preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively and after more than 12 months. RESULTS: The DCM electrode detected the midline in 9/13 patients with handling limitations in the remaining patients. SCS was applicable in all patients with determination of the midline in 9/13. If both recordings could be acquired (6/13), concordance was 100%. If baseline SSEPs were poor, both methods were limited. SCS was less time-consuming (p = 0.001), cheaper, and easier to handle. In 92% of cases, the AM and neurophysiologic midlines were concordant. After myelotomy, 3 patients experienced > 50% reduction in amplitude of SSEPs. Despite early postoperative worsening of DC function, long-term follow-up showed significant recovery and improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: DCM and SCS may help confirm and correct the AM for myelotomy in imSCT, leading to a favorable long-term neurological outcome in this cohort. SCS evolved to be superior concerning applicability, cost-effectiveness, and time expenditure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00701-023-05554-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10624746
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106247462023-11-05 Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up Ueberschaer, Moritz Breitkopf, Katharina Siller, Sebastian Katzendobler, Sophie Weller, Jonathan Greve, Tobias Zausinger, Stefan Tonn, Joerg-Christian Szelenyi, Andrea Acta Neurochir (Wien) Original Article PURPOSE: In surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors (imSCT), distortion of the anatomy challenges the visual identification of dorsal columns (DC) for midline myelotomy. Dorsal column mapping (DCM) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can identify DC neurophysiologically. We compare application and feasibility of both methods. METHODS: Patients with surgically treated imSCT were prospectively included between 04/2017 and 06/2019. The anatomical midline (AM) was marked. SSEPs at the DC after stimulation of tibial/median nerve with an 8-channel DCM electrode and cortical SSEP phase reversal at C3/C4 after SCS using a bipolar concentric probe were recorded. Procedural and technical aspects were compared. Standardized neurological examinations were performed preoperatively, 1 week postoperatively and after more than 12 months. RESULTS: The DCM electrode detected the midline in 9/13 patients with handling limitations in the remaining patients. SCS was applicable in all patients with determination of the midline in 9/13. If both recordings could be acquired (6/13), concordance was 100%. If baseline SSEPs were poor, both methods were limited. SCS was less time-consuming (p = 0.001), cheaper, and easier to handle. In 92% of cases, the AM and neurophysiologic midlines were concordant. After myelotomy, 3 patients experienced > 50% reduction in amplitude of SSEPs. Despite early postoperative worsening of DC function, long-term follow-up showed significant recovery and improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSION: DCM and SCS may help confirm and correct the AM for myelotomy in imSCT, leading to a favorable long-term neurological outcome in this cohort. SCS evolved to be superior concerning applicability, cost-effectiveness, and time expenditure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00701-023-05554-1. Springer Vienna 2023-03-17 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10624746/ /pubmed/36930366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05554-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Ueberschaer, Moritz
Breitkopf, Katharina
Siller, Sebastian
Katzendobler, Sophie
Weller, Jonathan
Greve, Tobias
Zausinger, Stefan
Tonn, Joerg-Christian
Szelenyi, Andrea
Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title_full Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title_fullStr Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title_short Dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
title_sort dorsal column mapping in resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a prospective comparison of two methods and neurological follow-up
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624746/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36930366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05554-1
work_keys_str_mv AT ueberschaermoritz dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT breitkopfkatharina dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT sillersebastian dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT katzendoblersophie dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT wellerjonathan dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT grevetobias dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT zausingerstefan dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT tonnjoergchristian dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup
AT szelenyiandrea dorsalcolumnmappinginresectionofintramedullaryspinalcordtumorsaprospectivecomparisonoftwomethodsandneurologicalfollowup