The utility of motor-evoked potential monitoring during intramedullary surgery

What Is the Best Multimodality Combination for Intraoperative Spinal Cord Monitoring of Motor Function? A Multicenter Study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research

Study Design Surgeon survey. Objective To analyze multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) for different combinations of methods based on the collected data and determine the best combination. Methods A questionnaire was sent to 72 training institutions to analyze and compile data about monitoring that had been conducted during the preceding 5 years to obtain data on the following: (1) types of monitoring; (2) names and number of diseases; (3) conditions of anesthesia; (4) condition of stimulation, the monitored muscle and its number; (5) complications; and (6) preoperative and postoperative manual muscle testing, presence of dysesthesia, and the duration of postoperative motor deficit. Sensitivity and specificity, false-positive rates, and false-negative rates were examined for each type of monitoring, along with the relationship between each type of monitoring and the period of postoperative motor deficit. Results Comparison of the various combinations showed transcranial electrical stimulation motor evoked potential (TcMEP) + cord evoked potential after stimulation to the brain (Br-SCEP) combination had the highest sensitivity (90%). The TcMEP + somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) and TcMEP + spinal cord evoked potential after stimulation to the spinal cord (Sp-SCEP) combinations each had a sensitivity of 80%, exhibiting little difference between their sensitivity and that obtained when TcMEP alone was used. Meanwhile, the sensitivity was as low as 50% with Br-SCEP + Sp-SCEP (i.e., the cases where TcMEP was not included). Conclusions The best multimodality combination for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring is TcMEP + Br-SCEP, which had the highest sensitivity (90%), the lowest false-positive rate (6.1%), and the lowest false-negative rate (0.2%).

Intraoperative changes in transcranial motor evoked potentials and somatosensory evoked potentials predicting outcome in children with intramedullary spinal cord tumors

OBJECT

Intraoperative dorsal column mapping, transcranial motor evoked potentials (TcMEPs), and somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) have been used in adults to assist with the resection of intramedullary spinal cord tumors (IMSCTs) and to predict postoperative motor deficits. The authors sought to determine whether changes in MEP and SSEP waveforms would similarly predict postoperative motor deficits in children.

METHODS

The authors reviewed charts and intraoperative records for children who had undergone resection for IMSCTs as well as dorsal column mapping and TcMEP and SSEP monitoring. Motor evoked potential data were supplemented with electromyography data obtained using a Kartush microstimulator (Medtronic Inc.). Motor strength was graded using the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale during the preoperative, immediate postoperative, and follow-up periods. Reductions in SSEPs were documented after mechanical traction, in response to maneuvers with the cavitational ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), or both.

RESULTS

Data from 12 patients were analyzed. Three lesions were encountered in the cervical and 7 in the thoracic spinal cord. Two patients had lesions of the cervicomedullary junction and upper spinal cord. Intraoperative MEP changes were noted in half of the patients. In these cases, normal polyphasic signals converted to biphasic signals, and these changes correlated with a loss of 1-2 grades in motor strength. One patient lost MEP signals completely and recovered strength to MRC Grade 4/5. The 2 patients with high cervical lesions showed neither intraoperative MEP changes nor motor deficits postoperatively. Dorsal columns were mapped in 7 patients, and the midline was determined accurately in all 7. Somatosensory evoked potentials were decreased in 7 patients. Two patients each had 2 SSEP decreases in response to traction intraoperatively but had no new sensory findings postoperatively. Another 2 patients had 3 traction-related SSEP decreases intraoperatively, and both had new postoperative sensory deficits that resolved. One additional patient had a CUSA-related SSEP decrease intraoperatively, which resolved postoperatively, and the last patient had 3 traction-related sensory deficits and a CUSA-related sensory deficit postoperatively, none of which resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative TcMEPs and SSEPs can predict the degree of postoperative motor deficit in pediatric patients undergoing IMSCT resection. This technique, combined with dorsal column mapping, is particularly useful in resecting lesions of the upper cervical cord, which are generally considered to be high risk in this population. Furthermore, the spinal cord appears to be less tolerant of repeated intraoperative SSEP decreases, with 3 successive insults most likely to yield postoperative sensory deficits. Changes in TcMEPs and SSEP waveforms can signal the need to guard against excessive manipulation thereby increasing the safety of tumor resection.

Usefulness of multi-channels in intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: multi-center study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research

OBJECT

The purpose of this study is to analyze the data in terms of the number of channels employed to examine the usefulness of multi-channels in intraoperative spinal cord monitoring.

METHODS

The prerequisites for inclusion in the baseline data were as follows: (1) cases in which only CMAP monitoring was conducted; (2) cases in which monitoring was conducted under the same stimulation condition and the recording condition. Cases where inhalation anesthesia was used or muscle relaxants were used as maintenance anesthesia was excluded from the baseline data. Of the 6,887 cases, 884 cases met the criteria. The items examined for each of the different numbers of channels were the sensitivity and specificity, the false positive rate, the false negative rate, and the coverage rate of postoperative motor deficit muscles.

RESULT

To examine these two items in terms of the number of channels, the 4-channel group had lower sensitivity and specificity scores compared with the 8- and 16-channel groups (4 channels 73/93 %, 8 channels 100/97 %, 16 channels 100/95 %). Only four channels were derived for these cases and the coverage of postoperative motor deficit muscles was 38 % with only 30 out of the 80 postoperative motor deficit muscles in total being monitored. In the 8-channel group, it was 60 % with 12 of the 20 postoperative motor deficit muscles being monitored. The 16-channel group had 100 % coverage rate of postoperative motor deficit muscles.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that multi-channel monitoring of at least eight channels is desirable for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring.