Trans-cranial motor evoked potential detection of femoral nerve injury in trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Sequential Depth Stimulation Within the Psoas Offers No Benefit for Localization of the Lumbar Plexus During Lateral Lumbar Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aim to assess the difference in triggered EMG readings throughout different depths in the psoas muscle during the lateral approach to the lumbar spine and their effect on surgeon decision making.

METHODS

Three surgeons, practicing at different institutions, assessed triggered EMG readings during the trans psoas approach at the level of the disc and 5,10 and 15 millimeters into the psoas muscle with sequential dilators. Measurement of distance into the psoas muscle was done with a specially designed instrument. Results of anterior and posterior directed stimulation as well as the delta value between these were recorded and underwent statistical analysis. Patients who had partial readings were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 40 levels in 35 patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference found between means of anterior or posterior threshold readings along the different distance groups. A significant difference was found (P = .024) in the mean difference between the distance groups with a decrease in the difference between anterior and posterior threshold values found as the distance from the disc space increased. None of the surgeons reported a decision to abort the fusion of a spinal level.

CONCLUSIONS

In the trans-psoas approach to the lumbar spine, the assessment of the location of the femoral nerve using directional neuromonitoring when advancing in the psoas muscle shows no clear benefit as opposed to stimulating solely when adjacent to the disc space.

Femoral and obturator neuropathies

The femoral and obturator nerves both arise from the L2, L3, and L4 spinal nerve roots and descend into the pelvis before emerging in the lower limbs. The femoral nerve's primary function is knee extension and hip flexion, along with some sensory innervation to the leg. The obturator nerve's primary function is thigh adduction and sensory innervation to a small area of the medial thigh. Each may be injured by a variety of potential causes, many of them iatrogenic. Here, we review the anatomy of the femoral and obturator nerves and the clinical features and potential etiologies of femoral and obturator neuropathies. Their necessary investigations, including electrodiagnostic studies and imaging, their prognosis, and potential treatments, are discussed in this chapter.

Neuromonitoring Identifies Occlusion of Femoral Artery in STA-MCA Bypass Procedure: A Case Report

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) is a technique used to assess the somatosensory and gross motor systems during surgery. While it is primarily used to detect and prevent surgically induced nervous system trauma, it can also detect and prevent injury to the nervous system that is the result of other causes such as trauma or ischemia that occur outside of the operative field as a result of malpositioning or other problematic physiologic states. We present a case study where a neuromonitoring alert altered the surgical procedure, though the alert was not correlated to the site of surgery. A 69-year-old male with a history of bilateral moyamoya disease and a left middle cerebral artery infarct underwent a right-sided STA-MCA bypass and encephaloduroarteriosynangiosis (EDAS) with multimodal IONM. During the procedure, the patient experienced a loss of motor evoked potential (MEP) recordings in the right lower extremity. Blood pressure was elevated, which temporarily restored the potentials, but they were lost again after the angiography team attempted to place an arterial line in the right femoral artery. The operation was truncated out of concern for left hemispheric ischemia, and it was later discovered that the patient had an acute right external iliac artery occlusion caused by a fresh thrombus in the common femoral artery causing complete paralysis of the limb. This case highlights the importance of heeding IONM alerts and evaluating for systemic causes if the alert is not thought to be of surgical etiology. IONM can detect adverse systemic neurological sequelae that is not necessarily surgically induced.

Confirming a C5 Palsy with a Motor Evoked Potential Trending Algorithm during Insertion of Cervical Facet Spacers: A Case Study

The use of cervical facet spacers has shown favorable clinical results in the treatment of cervical spondylotic disease; however, there are limited data regarding neurological complications associated with the procedure. This case report demonstrates the specificity of multi-myotomal motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in detecting acute postoperative C5 palsy following placement of facet spacers. A posterior cervical fusion with decompression and instrumentation involving DTRAX (Providence Medical Technology; Lafayette, CA) was used to treat a patient with cervical stenosis and myelopathy. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) consisting of MEPs, somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), and free-run electromyography (EMG), was used throughout the procedure. Immediately following the placement of the DTRAX spacers at C4-5, a decrease in amplitudes from the right deltoid and biceps MEP recordings (>65%) was detected. All other IONM modalities remained stable; it is noteworthy that there was an absence of mechanically elicited EMG. A novel post-alert regression analysis trending algorithm of MEP amplitudes confirmed the visual alert. This warning along with an intraoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of the cervical spine subsequently resulted in the decision to remove one of the facet spacers. Surgical intervention did not result in recovery of the aforementioned MEP recordings, which remained attenuated at the time of wound closure. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited an immediate right C5 palsy (2/5). A post-surgery application of the trending algorithm demonstrated that it correlated to the visual alert until the end of monitoring.

Saphenous somatosensory-evoked potentials monitoring of femoral nerve health during prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

To assess whether saphenous somatosensory-evoked potentials (saphSSEP) monitoring may provide predictive information of femoral nerve health during prone lateral interbody fusion (LIF) procedures.

METHODS

Intraoperative details were captured prospectively in consecutive prone LIF surgeries at a single institution. Triggered electromyography was used during the approach; saphSSEP was monitored throughout using a novel system that enables acquisition of difficult signals and real-time actionable feedback facilitating intraoperative intervention. Postoperative neural function was correlated with intraoperative findings.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (58% female, mean age 64, mean BMI 32) underwent LIF at 95 total levels, inclusive of L4-5 in 76%, fixated via percutaneous pedicle screws (81%) or lateral plate, with direct decompression in 39%. Total operative time averaged 149 min. Psoas retraction time averaged 16 min/level. Baseline SSEPs were unreliable in 3 due to comorbidities in 2 and anesthesia in 1; one of those resulted in transient quadriceps weakness, fully recovered at 6 weeks. In 25/56, no saphSSEP changes occurred, and none had postoperative femoral nerve deficits. In 24/31 with saphSSEP changes, responses recovered intraoperatively following intervention, with normal postoperative function in all but one with delayed quadriceps weakness, improved at 4 months and recovered at 9 months, and a second with transient isolated anterior thigh numbness. In the remaining 7/31, saphSSEP changes persisted to close, and resulted in 2 transient isolated anterior thigh numbness and 2 combined sensory and motor femoral nerve deficits, both resolved at between 4 and 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

SaphSSEP was reliably monitored in most cases and provided actionable feedback that was highly predictive of neurological events during LIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Do evoked potentials matter? Pre-pathologic signal change and clinical outcomes with expandable cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS LLIF) is a reliable technique for treatment of degenerative disk disease, foraminal stenosis and spinal deformity. The retroperitoneal transpsoas approach risks lumbar plexus injury that may result in anterior thigh pain, sensory loss and weakness. A prospective study of 64 consecutive patients undergoing MIS LLIF with expandable cages (23 standalone, 41 integrated with lateral plate) using multimodal electrophysiological monitoring was performed. We measured sequential retraction times, complications, patient reported outcome scores and electrophysiologic findings with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Incidence of evoked potential and electromyographic signal change was moderate, and rarely resulted in post-operative neurologic deficit. Evoked potential signal changes were frequently resolved by the un-breaking of the surgical table or repositioning of the retractor. Average retraction times were 24 (15-41) minutes for standalone cages and 30 (15-41) minutes for integrated cages. At follow-up, the vast majority (97%) of patients reported significant clinical improvement post-operatively with only 2 patients reporting postoperative neurologic symptoms and subsequent recovery at 12-months. The present study shows that evoked potentials combined with electromyography is a more sensitive measure of pre-pathologic lumbar plexopathy in LLIF compared to electromyography alone, especially at L3/4 and L4/5 levels. Based on our findings, there is limited clinical indication for routine neural monitoring at rostral lumbar levels. The routine inclusion of multimodal electrophysiological monitoring in lateral transpsoas surgery is recommended to minimise the risk of neural injury by enabling optimal patient and retractor positioning and continued surveillance throughout the procedure.

Femoral nerve neuromonitoring for lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique is an effective alternative to traditional anterior and posterior approaches to the lumbar spine; however, nerve injuries are the most reported postoperative complication. Commonly used strategies to avoid nerve injury (eg, limiting retraction duration) have not been effective in detecting or preventing femoral nerve injuries.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of emerging intraoperative femoral nerve monitoring techniques and the importance of employing prompt surgical countermeasures when degraded femoral nerve function is detected.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

We present the results from a retrospective analysis of a multi-center study conducted over the course of 3 years.

PATIENT SAMPLE

One hundred and seventy-two lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures were reviewed.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Intraoperative femoral nerve monitoring data was correlated to immediate postoperative neurologic examinations.

METHODS

Femoral nerve evoked potentials (FNEP) including saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (snSSEP) and motor evoked potentials with quadriceps recordings were used to detect evidence of degraded femoral nerve function during the time of surgical retraction.

RESULTS

In 89% (n=153) of the surgeries, there were no surgeon alerts as the FNEP response amplitudes remained relatively unchanged throughout the surgery (negative group). The positive group included 11% of the cases (n=19) where the surgeon was alerted to a deterioration of the FNEP amplitudes during surgical retraction. Prompt surgical countermeasures to an FNEP alert included loosening, adjusting, or removing surgical retraction, and/or requesting an increase in blood pressure from the anesthesiologist. All the cases where prompt surgical countermeasures were employed resulted in recovery of the degraded FNEP amplitudes and no postoperative femoral nerve injuries. In two cases, the surgeons were given verbal alerts of degraded FNEPs but did not employ prompt surgical countermeasures. In both cases, the degraded FNEP amplitudes did not recover by the time of surgical closure, and both patients exhibited postoperative signs of sensorimotor femoral nerve injury including anterior thigh numbness and weakened knee extension.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal femoral nerve monitoring can provide surgeons with a timely alert to hyperacute femoral nerve conduction failure, enabling prompt surgical countermeasures to be employed that can mitigate or avoid femoral nerve injury. Our data also suggests that the common strategy of limiting retraction duration may not be effective in preventing iatrogenic femoral nerve injuries.

Neurophysiology during peripheral nerve surgery

Electrophysiological monitoring of the peripheral nervous system during a variety of surgeries provides useful information that supplements and complements preoperative assessment. Monitoring improves localization and understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of peripheral nerve lesions leading to more rational treatment decisions and improved outcomes. Monitoring is accomplished by adaptation of routine electrodiagnostic techniques (i.e., nerve conduction studies, evoked potentials, and electromyography) with special attention to technical factors including electrical and movement artifact. These techniques have been successfully applied during surgery for entrapment neuropathies, traumatic nerve injury and repair, peripheral nerve tumors, and adjacent structure procedures that risk peripheral nerve injury. A clear understanding of the anatomy and neurophysiology is necessary, as is understanding and performing the difficult technical aspects of these studies to provide accurate information to enhance patient outcome and recovery. As in any intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) setting, constant and accurate communication between the IONM team, surgeon, and anesthesia team is critically important to meet these goals.

Intraoperative neuromonitoring during surgery for lumbar stenosis

The indications for neuromonitoring during lumbar stenosis surgery are defined by the risks associated with patient positioning, the approach, decompression of neural elements, deformity correction, and instrument implantation. The routine use of EMG and SEP alone during lumbar stenosis surgery is no longer supported by the literature. Lateral approach neuromonitoring with EMG only is also suspect. Lumbar stenosis patients often present with multiple co-morbidities which put them at risk during routine pre-surgical positioning. Frequently encountered morbid obesity and/or diabetes mellitus may play a role in monitorable and preventable brachial plexopathy after "superman" positioning or femoral neuropathy from groin pressure after prone positioning, for example. Deformity correction in lumbar stenosis surgery often demands advanced implementation of multiple neuromonitoring modalities: EMG, SEP, and MEP. Because the bulbocavernosus reflex detects the function of the conus medullaris and sacral somato afferent/efferent fibers of the cauda equina, it may also be recorded. The recommendation to record pedicle screw thresholds has become more nuanced as surgeon dependence on 3D imaging, navigation, and robotics has increased. Neuromonitoring in lumbar stenosis surgery has been subject mainly to uncontrolled case series; prospective cohort trials are also needed.

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring During Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective

To review the evidence for the use of electromyography (EMG), motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) strategies during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), as well as discuss the limitations associated with each technique.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature and compilation of findings relating to clinical studies investigating the efficacy of EMG, MEP, SSEP, or combined IONM strategies during LLIF.

Results

The evidence for the use of EMG is mixed with some studies demonstrating the efficacy of EMG in preventing postoperative neurologic injuries and other studies demonstrating a high rate of postoperative neurologic deficits with EMG monitoring. Multimodal IONM strategies utilizing MEPs or saphenous SSEPs to monitor the lumbar plexus may be promising strategies based on results from a limited number of studies.

Conclusion

The use of traditional EMG during LLIF remains without consensus. There is a growing body of evidence utilizing multimodal IONM with MEPs or saphenous SSEPs demonstrating a possible decrease in postoperative neurologic injuries after LLIF. Future prospective studies, with clear definitions of neurologic injury, that evaluate different multimodal IONM strategies are needed to better assess the efficacy of IONM during LLIF.

Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials Monitoring During Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN.

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To clinically evaluate saphenous nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) as a reliable and predictable way to detect upper lumbar plexus injury intraoperatively during lateral lumbar trans-psoas interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

Saphenous nerve SSEPs were obtained by stimulation of inferior medial thigh with needle electrodes and recording from transcranial potentials. The primary outcome was measured by testing reproducibility of SSEPs at baseline, changes during the procedure, and relevance to standard modalities. Significant SSEP changes were compared with actual postoperative nerve complications. The sensitivity and specificity of saphenous SSEPs to detect postoperative lumbar plexus nerve injury was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were included in the study. Reliable saphenous SSEPs were recorded on the LLIF approach side in 52/62 patients. Persistent saphenous SSEP reduction of amplitude of >50% in 6 cases was observed during expansion of the tubular retractor or during the procedure. Two of 6 patients postoperatively had femoral nerve sensory deficits, and 5 of 6 patients had mild femoral nerve motor weakness, all of which resolved at an average of 12 weeks postoperatively (range 2-24 weeks). One patient had saphenous SSEP changes but demonstrated intraoperative recovery and had no postoperative clinical deficits. Saphenous SSEPs demonstrated 52% to 100% sensitivity and 90% to 100% specificity for detecting postoperative femoral nerve complications.

CONCLUSION

Saphenous SSEPs can be used to detect electrophysiological changes to prevent femoral nerve injury during LLIF. Intraoperative SSEP recovery after amplitude reduction or loss may be a prognostic factor for final clinical outcome.

Roadmap for Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Monitoring for Patients Undergoing Lumbar and Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Procedures

MEPs are recommended for patients undergoing lumbar and lumbosacral procedures in which intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) is being utilized. While electromyography (EMG) provides critical nerve root proximity information, spontaneous EMG discharges are relatively poor at reliably diagnosing spinal nerve root dysfunction. In contrast, research indicates that MEPs are both sensitive and specific in diagnosing evolving spinal nerve root dysfunction. There is conflicting evidence, however, and it must be emphasized that the value of adding MEPs is only realized when practices and techniques are optimized. The ideal anesthetic plan is an optimized total intravenous anesthetic (TIVA) regimen. Selection of appropriate anesthetics and dosing is important for optimizing baseline response amplitudes and promoting diagnostic confidence in analyzing signal changes. An adaptive set of alert criteria that account for baseline amplitude and morphology fluctuations should guide the determination of significant signal change. The therapeutic impact of accurate diagnostic information depends on the timeliness of diagnosis and intervention. Prior to the start of surgery, a plan to obtain MEPs at least once every 10 minutes during the active part of the procedure and after every significant surgical maneuver should be agreed upon, and the intervention plan should include but not be limited to possible removal of hardware and release of retraction or distractive forces. In summary, MEPs can improve monitoring of at-risk nerve root function, but the accuracy and therapeutic impact of such monitoring depend on perioperative planning and communication that optimize use of this modality.

Many Intraoperative Monitoring Modalities Have Been Developed To Limit Injury During Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF/MIS XLIF): Does That Mean XLIF/MIS XLIF Are Unsafe?

Background:

Extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIF) and Minimally Invasive (MIS) XLIF pose significant risks of neural injury to the; lumbar plexus, ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, genitofemoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, and subcostal nerves. To limit these injuries, many intraoperative neural monitoring (IONM) modalities have been proposed.

Methods:

Multiple studies document various frequencies of neural injuries occurring during MIS XLIF/XLIF: plexus injuries (13.28%); sensory deficits (0-75%; permanent 62.5%); motor deficits (0.7-33.6%; most typically iliopsoas weakness (14.3%-31%)), and anterior thigh/groin pain (12.5-25%.-34%). To avoid/limit these injuries, multiple IONM techniques have been proposed. These include; using finger electrodes during operative dissection, employing motor evoked potentials (MEP), eliminating (no) muscle relaxants (NMR), and using “triggered” EMGs.

Results:

In one study, finger electrodes for XLIF at L4-L5 level for degenerative spondylolisthesis reduced transient postoperative neurological symptoms from 7 [38%] of 18 cases (e.g. without IONM) to 5 [14%] of 36 cases (with IONM). Two series showed that motor evoked potential monitoring (MEP) for XLIF reduced postoperative motor deficits; they, therefore, recommended their routine use for XLIF. Another study demonstrated that eliminating muscle relaxants during XLIF markedly reduced postoperative neurological deficits/thigh pain by allowing for better continuous EMG monitoring (e.g. NMR no muscle relaxants). Finally, a “triggered” EMG study” reduced postoperative motor neuropraxia, largely by limiting retraction time.

Conclusion:

Multiple studies have offered different IONM techniques to avert neurological injuries following MIS XLIF/XLIF. Does this mean that these procedures (e.g. XLIF/MIS XLIF) are unsafe?

Use of motor evoked potentials during lateral lumbar interbody fusion reduces postoperative deficits

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has gained rather widespread acceptance as a method to mitigate risk to the lumbar plexus during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The most common approach to IONM involves using only electromyography (EMG) monitoring, and the rate of postoperative deficit remains unacceptably high. Other test modalities, such as transcranial electric motor-evoked potentials (tcMEPs) and somatosensory-evoked potentials, may be more suitable for monitoring neural integrity, but they have not been widely adopted during LLIF. Recent studies have begun to examine their utility in monitoring LLIF surgery with favorable results.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different IONM paradigms in the prevention of iatrogenic neurologic sequelae during LLIF and to specifically evaluate the utility of including tcMEPs in an IONM strategy for LLIF surgery.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A non-randomized, retrospective analysis of 479 LLIF procedures at a single institution over a 4-year period was conducted. During the study epoch, three different IONM strategies were used for LLIF procedures: (1) surgeon-directed T-EMG monitoring ("SD-EMG"), (2) neurophysiologist-controlled T-EMG monitoring ("NC-EMG"), and (3) neurophysiologist-controlled T-EMG monitoring supplemented with MEP monitoring ("NC-MEP").

PATIENT SAMPLE

The patient population comprised 254 men (53.5%) and 221 women (46.5%). Patient age ranged from a minimum of 21 years to a maximum of 89 years, with a mean of 56.6 years.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Physician-documented physiological measures included manual muscle test grading of hip-flexion, hip-adduction, or knee-extension, as well as hypo- or hyperesthesia of the groin or anterolateral thigh on the surgical side. Self-reported measures included numbness or tingling in the groin or anterolateral thigh on the surgical side.

METHODS

Patient progress notes were reviewed from the postoperative period up to 12 months after surgery. The rates of postoperative sensory-motor deficit consistent with lumbar plexopathy or peripheral nerve palsy on the surgical side were compared between the three cohorts.

RESULTS

Using the dependent measure of neurologic deficit, whether motor or sensory, patients with NC-MEP monitoring had the lowest rate of immediate postoperative deficit (22.3%) compared with NC-EMG monitoring (37.1%) and SD-EMG monitoring (40.4%). This result extended to sensory deficits consistent with lumbar plexopathy (pure motor deficits being excluded); patients with NC-MEP monitoring had the lowest rate (20.5%) compared with NC-EMG monitoring (34.3%) and SD-EMG monitoring (36.9%). Additionally, evaluation of postoperative motor deficits consistent with peripheral nerve palsy (pure sensory deficits being excluded) revealed that the NC-MEP group had the lowest rate (5.7%) of motor deficit compared with the SD-EMG (17.0%) and NC-EMG (17.1%) cohorts. Finally, when assessing only those patients whose last follow-up was greater than or equal to 12 months (n=251), the rate of unresolved motor deficits was significantly lower in the NC-MEP group (0.9%) compared with NC-EMG (6.9%) and SD-EMG (11.0%). A comparison of the NC-MEP versus NC-EMG and SD-EMG groups, both independently and combined, was statistically significant (>95% confidence level) for all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study indicate that preservation of tcMEPs from the adductor longus, quadriceps, and tibialis anterior muscles are of paramount importance for limiting iatrogenic sensory and motor injuries during LLIF surgery. In this regard, the inclusion of tcMEPs serves to compliment EMG and allows for the periodic, functional assessment of at-risk nerves during these procedures. Thus, tcMEPs appear to be the most effective modality for the prevention of both transient and permanent neurologic injury during LLIF surgery. We propose that the standard paradigm for protecting the nervous system during LLIF be adapted to include tcMEPs.

Unpredictable interference of new transcranial motor-evoked potential monitor against the implanted pacemaker

Recently, NuVasive NV-M5 nerve monitoring system, a new transcranial motor-evoked potential (TcMEP) monitor, has been introduced with the spread of flank-approach spinal operations such as extreme lateral interbody fusion, to prevent nerve damage. Conventional TcMEP monitors use changes in MEP wave patterns, such as amplitude and/or latency, whereas the NV-M5 nerve monitor system first measures the MEP baseline waveform from the transcranial-evoked potential then measures the electric current necessary to obtain the standard of the previous baseline wave pattern at subsequent monitoring times. The NV-M5 monitor determines nerve damage according to the increase in necessary electric current threshold. The NV-M5 monitor also uses a local electrical stimulation mode to monitor the safety of setting screws into the lumbar vertebrae. In this way, various electrical stimulations with various durations and frequencies are used, and electrical noise may result in unpredictable interference with cardiac pacemakers. We performed anesthetic management of extreme lateral interbody fusion surgery using the NV-M5 in a patient with an implanted pacemaker, during which TcMEP stimulation caused interference with the implanted pacemaker.

Neurological complications in adult spinal deformity surgery

The number of surgeries performed for adult spinal deformity (ASD) has been increasing due to an aging population, longer life expectancy, and studies supporting an improvement in health-related quality of life scores after operative intervention. However, medical and surgical complication rates remain high, and neurological complications such as spinal cord injury and motor deficits can be especially debilitating to patients. Several independent factors potentially influence the likelihood of neurological complications including surgical approach (anterior, lateral, or posterior), use of osteotomies, thoracic hyperkyphosis, spinal region, patient characteristics, and revision surgery status. The majority of ASD surgeries are performed by a posterior approach to the thoracic and/or lumbar spine, but anterior and lateral approaches are commonly performed and are associated with unique neural complications such as femoral nerve palsy and lumbar plexus injuries. Spinal morphology, such as that of hyperkyphosis, has been reported to be a risk factor for complications in addition to three-column osteotomies, which are often utilized to correct large deformities. Additionally, revision surgeries are common in ASD and these patients are at an increased risk of procedure-related complications and nervous system injury. Patient selection, surgical technique, and use of intraoperative neuromonitoring may reduce the incidence of complications and optimize outcomes.

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing 2015 end of year summary: anesthesia

Clinical monitoring is an essential part of the profession of anesthesiology. It would therefore be impossible to review all articles published in the Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing that are relevant to anesthesia. Because other reviews will address monitoring of the respiratory and cardiovascular system, the current review will limit itself to topics uniquely related to anesthesia. The topics are organized according to the chronological order in which an anesthetic proceeds: secure the airway; ventilate and deliver anesthetic gases; monitor vital organ function and anesthetic depth; and ensure analgesia during/after emergence from anesthesia (locoregional anesthesia and pain control).