Cargando…

A Retrospective Study of Surgical Correction for Spinal Deformity with and without Osteotomy to Compare Outcome Using Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring with Evoked Potentials

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different combined evoked potentials monitoring modes for non-osteotomy and osteotomy surgery of spinal deformity, and to select individualized modes for various surgeries. MATERIAL/METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a total of 188 consecutiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Jian, Yang, Jing-fan, Deng, Yao-long, Sui, Wen-yuan, Shao, Xie-xiang, Huang, Zi-fang, Yang, Jun-lin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7446276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32794474
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.925371
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different combined evoked potentials monitoring modes for non-osteotomy and osteotomy surgery of spinal deformity, and to select individualized modes for various surgeries. MATERIAL/METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a total of 188 consecutive cases undergoing spinal deformity correction. All patients were classified into 2 cohorts: non-osteotomy (Group A) and osteotomy (Group B). According to intraoperative evoked potential monitoring mode, Group A was divided into 2 sub-groups: A1 [spinal somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP)/motor evoked potential (MEP), n=67)] and A2 [SSEP/MEP/descending neurogenic evoked potential (DNEP), n=52]. Group B was classified as B1 (SSEP/MEP, n=27) and B2 (SSEP/MEP/DNEP, n=42). The demographics, surgical parameters, and evoked potential events of different combined monitoring modes were analyzed within each group. RESULTS: The baselines of SSEP/MEP/DNEP in all cases were elicited successfully. Three cases with evoked potential (EP) events (2 with MEP changes and 1 with SSEP/MEP change) were noted in Group A1 and 1 with SSEP change in Group A2, with no neurological complications. Thirteen cases in Group B1 were positive for MEP intraoperatively, including 16 EP events (13 with MEP change and 3 with both SSEP+MEP changes), with no neural complications. In Group B2, 15 cases had 21 EP events, including 12 with MEP change and 2 with SSEP+MEP changes, with no complications. Postoperative neurological complications were observed in 5 of the 7 cases with SS4EP/DNEP changes. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative simultaneous SSEP/MEP can effectively reflect neurological function in non-osteotomy spinal surgery patients. Simultaneous SSEP/MEP/DNEP can effectively avoid the unnecessary interference by false-positive results of MEP during osteotomy.