Neurophysiologic Detection of Spinal Cord Ischemia During Anterior Vertebral Tethering

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in scoliosis surgery: literature review of the last 10 years

INTRODUCTION

Patients with spinal deformities undergoing corrective surgery are at risk for iatrogenic spinal cord injury (SCI) and subsequent neurological deficit. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) allows early detection of SCI which enables early intervention resulting in a better prognosis. The primary aim of this literature review was to search if there are threshold values of TcMEP and SSEP in the literature that are widely accepted as alert during IONM. The secondary aim was to update knowledge concerning IONM during scoliosis surgery.

METHOD

PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane library electronic databases were used to search publication from 2012 to 2022. The following keywords were used: evoked potential, scoliosis, surgery, intraoperative monitoring and neurophysiological. We included all studies dealing with SSEP and TcMEP monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Two authors reviewed all titles and abstracts to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

We included 43 papers. Rates of IONM alert and neurological deficit varied from 0.56 to 64% and from 0.15 to 8.3%, respectively. Threshold values varied from a loss of 50 to 90% for TcMEP amplitude, whereas it seems that a loss of 50% in amplitude and/or an increase of 10% of latency is widely accepted for SSEP. Causes of IONM changes most frequently reported were surgical maneuver.

CONCLUSION

Concerning SSEP, a loss of 50% in amplitude and/or an increase of 10% of latency is widely accepted as an alert. For TcMEP, it seems that the use of highest threshold values can avoid unnecessary surgical procedure for the patient without increasing risk of neurological deficit.

Thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion vs. thoracic anterior spinal tethering for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with a minimum of 2-year follow-up: a cost comparison of index and revision operations

PURPOSE

To compare direct costs of index and revision operations of thoracic posterior spinal instrumented fusion (TPSIF) and thoracic anterior spinal tethering (TAST) for adolescent idiopathic thoracic scoliosis in children.

METHODS

Children (ages 11-18 years) who underwent TPSIF and TAST (2/2013-9/2019) were reviewed. Follow-up < 2 years and cervical instrumentation and/or instrumentation of a lumbar level at L3 or below were exclusion criteria. Patient demographics, radiographic curve magnitude, index operations and postoperative data, as well as indications for revisions/readmissions were collected. Direct costs were identified and compared for index and revision operations during follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred and four patients were included (TPSIF: 78; TAST: 25). TAST procedures were performed in children significantly younger and for smaller curve magnitudes. They had significantly fewer levels instrumented, shorter operating room (OR) times, and less estimated blood loss (EBL). After operation, a significantly higher percentage of TAST were admitted to ICU. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was similar between groups. Index operations' average direct costs were significantly higher for TAST than TPSIF ($52,947 v. $46,641; p = 0.02). Major cost drivers for both groups were implants, OR services, post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and room/board. Revisions following TAST were more frequent than for TPSIF (36 v. 11.5%). Majority of TPSIF revisions were for junctional deformity. Curve progression and overcorrection were most common reason for TAST revisions. Average direct costs for revisions/readmissions were similar between groups (TPSIF: $28,485 v. TAST: $27,590; p = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Index operations' average direct costs were statistically similar between TPSIF and TAST for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Major cost drivers were implants, OR services, PACU, and room/board. TAST index operations' direct costs and associated direct costs for implants and room/board were significantly higher, while their anesthesia and OR services were significantly lower than TPSIF. TAST revisions were for overcorrection and curve progression, while TPSIF revisions were most commonly for junctional deformity. Overall average direct costs for revisions were similar despite revision rates being higher for TAST.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Establishing consensus: determinants of high-risk and preventative strategies for neurological events in complex spinal deformity surgery

PURPOSE

To establish expert consensus on various parameters that constitute elevated risk during spinal deformity surgery and potential preventative strategies that may minimize the risk of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) events and postoperative neurological deficits.

METHODS

Through a series of surveys and a final virtual consensus meeting, the Delphi method was utilized to establish consensus among a group of expert spinal deformity surgeons. During iterative rounds of voting, participants were asked to express their agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) to include items in a final set of guidelines. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement among participants. Near-consensus was ≥ 60% but < 80% agreement, equipoise was ≥ 20% but < 60%, and consensus to exclude was < 20%.

RESULTS

Fifteen of the 15 (100%) invited expert spinal deformity surgeons agreed to participate. There was consensus to include 22 determinants of high-risk (8 patient factors, 8 curve and spinal cord factors, and 6 surgical factors) and 21 preventative strategies (4 preoperative, 14 intraoperative, and 3 postoperative) in the final set of best practice guidelines.

CONCLUSION

A resource highlighting several salient clinical factors found in high-risk spinal deformity patients as well as strategies to prevent neurological events was successfully created through expert consensus. This is intended to serve as a reference for surgeons and other clinicians involved in the care of spinal deformity patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.