Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials Monitoring During Lateral Interbody Fusion

Evaluating somatosensory evoked potentials in predicting treatment outcomes for thoracolumbar spinal compression fractures using closed reduction and over-extension techniques

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the predictive value of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) for the efficacy of closed reduction combined with over-extension reduction technique (PVP) in managing thoracolumbar spinal compression fractures.

METHODS

Data were collected from 125 patients who underwent closed reduction with PVP and SEP monitoring from February 2021 to July 2023. We evaluated surgery success rates, incidence of bone cement leakage, and patient recovery outcomes including vertebral anterior height, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Cobb angle restoration. SEP results were analyzed to categorize patients into effective and ineffective treatment groups. Differences in SEP waveforms between these groups were examined, and ROC analysis was used to assess the predictive value of these differences. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors affecting treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Post-treatment assessments showed significant improvements in vertebral anterior height, ODI, and Cobb angle. SEP monitoring correlated well with intraoperative findings and physical examinations. During reduction, changes in SEP latency and amplitude were noted in 37 patients, with 7 patients meeting SEP amplitude alarm criteria, which normalized after adjustments. During PVP, 28 patients exhibited SEP amplitude fluctuations and 5 experienced a 30% reduction in amplitude following initial cement injection, with no significant latency changes. Treatment was deemed effective in 93 patients and ineffective in 32. SEP amplitudes during vertebral compression and PVP were significantly lower in the effective group (P<0.05). The AUC for predicting treatment efficacy was 0.819 and 0.859, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed low preoperative vertebral compression ratio, number of fractures, and abnormal SEP amplitudes as independent risk factors for treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSION

SEP monitoring provides an accurate reflection of spinal cord function during closed reduction with PVP, aiding in predicting treatment safety and efficacy. The use of SEP monitoring is thus recommended for clinical application in this context.

Feasibility of Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potential Intraoperative Monitoring During Lumbar Spine Surgery: Early Results

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the feasibility of saphenous nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SN-SSEP) monitoring in lumbar spine surgeries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

SN-SSEPs have been proposed for detecting lumbar plexus and femoral nerve injury during lateral lumbar surgery where tibial nerve (TN) SSEPs alone are insufficient. SN-SSEPs may also be useful in other types of lumbar surgery, as stimulation of SN below the knee derives solely from the L4 root and provides a means of L4 monitoring, whereas TN-SSEPs often do not detect single nerve root injury. The feasibility of routine SN-SSEP monitoring has not been established.

METHODS

A total of 563 consecutive cases using both TN-SSEP and SN-SSEP monitoring were included. Anesthesia was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist, using an inhalant in 97.7% of procedures. SN stimulation was performed using 13 mm needle electrodes placed below the knee using 200-400 μsec pulses at 15 to 100 mA. Adjustments to stimulation parameters were made by the neurophysiology technician while obtaining baselines. Data were graded retrospectively for monitorability and cortical response amplitudes were measured by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight percent of TN-SSEPs and 92.5% of SN-SSEPs were monitorable at baseline, with a mean response amplitude of 1.35 μV for TN-SSEPs and 0.71 μV for SN-SSEPs. A significant difference between the stimulation parameters used to obtain reproducible TN and SN-SSEPs at baseline was observed, with SN-SSEPs requiring greater stimulation intensities. Body mass index is not associated with baseline monitorability. Out of 20 signal changes observed, 11 involved SN, while TN-SSEPs were unaffected.

CONCLUSION

With adjustments to stimulation parameters, SN-SSEP monitoring is feasible within a large clinical cohort without modifications to the anesthetic plan. Incorporating SN into standard intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring protocols for lumbar spine procedures may expand the role of SSEP monitoring to include detecting injury to the lumbar plexus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely utilized minimally invasive surgical procedure for anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. However, posterior decompression or instrumentation often necessitates patient repositioning, which is associated with increased operative time and time under anesthesia1-3. The single-position prone transpsoas approach is a technique that allows surgeons to access both the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, bypassing the need for intraoperative repositioning and therefore optimizing efficiency4. The use of robotic assistance allows for decreased radiation exposure and increased accuracy, both with placing instrumentation and navigating the lateral corridor.

Description

The patient is placed in the prone position, and pedicle screws are placed prior to interbody fusion. Pedicle screws are placed with robotic guidance. After posterior instrumentation, a skin incision for LLIF is made in the cephalocaudal direction, orthogonal to the disc space, with use of intraoperative (robotic) navigation. Fascia and abdominal muscles are incised to enter the retroperitoneal space. Under direct visualization, dilators are placed through the psoas muscle into the disc space, and an expandable retractor is placed and maintained with use of the robotic arm. Following a thorough discectomy, the disc space is sized with trial implants. The expandable cage is placed, and intraoperative fluoroscopy is utilized to verify good instrumentation positioning. Finally, posterior rods are placed percutaneously.

Alternatives

An alternative surgical approach is a traditional LLIF with the patient beginning in the lateral position, with intraoperative repositioning from the lateral to the prone position if circumferential fusion is warranted. Additional alternative surgical procedures include anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

Rationale

LLIF is associated with reported advantages of decreased risks of vascular injury, visceral injury, dural tear, and perioperative infection5,6. The single-position prone transpsoas approach confers the added benefits of reduced operative time, anesthesia time, and surgical staffing requirements7. Other potential benefits of the prone lateral approach include improved lumbar lordosis correction, gravity-induced displacement of peritoneal contents, and ease of posterior decompression and instrumentation8-11. Additionally, the use of robotic assistance offers numerous benefits to minimally invasive techniques, including intraoperative navigation, instrumentation templating, a more streamlined workflow, and increased accuracy in placing instrumentation, while also providing a reduction in radiation exposure and operative time. In our experience, the table-mounted LLIF retractor has a tendency to drift toward the floor-i.e., anteriorly-when the patient is positioned prone, which may, in theory, increase the risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. The rigid robotic arm is much stiffer than the traditional retractor, thereby reducing this risk.

Expected Outcomes

Compared with traditional LLIF, with the patient in the lateral and then prone positions, the single-position prone LLIF has been shown to have several benefits. Guiroy et al. performed a systematic review comparing single and dual-position LLIF and found that the single-position surgical procedure was associated with significantly lower operative time (103.1 versus 306.6 minutes), estimated blood loss (97.3 versus 314.4 mL), and length of hospital stay (1.71 versus 4.08 days)17. Previous studies have reported improved control of segmental lordosis in the prone position, which may be advantageous for patients with sagittal imbalance18,19.

Important Tips

Adequate release of the deep fascial layers is critical for minimizing deflection of retractors and navigated instruments.The hip should be maximally extended to maximize lordosis, allowing for posterior translation of the femoral nerve and increasing the width of the lateral corridor.A bolster is placed against the rib cage to provide resistance to the laterally directed force when impacting the graft.The cranial and caudal limits of the approach are bounded by the ribcage and iliac crest; thus, surgery at the upper or lower lumbar levels may not be feasible for this approach. Preoperative radiographs should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this approach at the intended levels.When operating at the L4-L5 disc space, posterior retraction places substantial tension on the femoral nerve. Thus, retractor time should be minimized as much as possible and limited to a maximum of approximately 20 minutes20-22.A depth of field (distance from the midline to the flank) of approximately 20 cm may be the limit for this approach with the current length of retractor blades19.In robotic-assisted surgical procedures, minor position shifts in surface landmarks, the robotic arm, or the patient may substantially impact the navigation software. It is critical for the patient and navigation components to remain fixed throughout the operation.In addition to somatosensory evoked potential and electromyographic monitoring, additional motor evoked potential neuromonitoring or monitoring of the saphenous nerve may be considered22.In the prone position, the tendency is for the retractor to migrate superficially and anteriorly. It is critical to be aware of this tendency and to maintain stable retractor positioning.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryPTP = prone transpsoasy.o. = years oldASIS = anterior superior iliac spinePSIS = posterior superior iliac spineALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionTLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMEP = motor evoked potentialSSEP = somatosensory evoked potentialEMG = electromyographyCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingOR = operating roomPOD = postoperative dayIVC = inferior vena cavaA. = aortaPS. = psoas.

Location of the Femoral Nerve in the Lateral Decubitus Versus Prone Position

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the position of the femoral nerve within the lumbar plexus at the L4-L5 disc space in the lateral decubitus vs prone position.

METHODS

Seven lumbar plexus specimens were dissected and the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle was identified and marked with radiopaque paint. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the cadaveric specimens in the lateral decubitus vs prone position were obtained. The location of the radiopaque femoral nerve at the L4-L5 disc space was normalized as a percentage of the L5 vertebral body (0% indicates posterior location and 100% indicates anterior location at the L4-L5 disc space). The location of the femoral nerve at L4-L5 in the lateral decubitus vs prone position was compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS

In the lateral decubitus position, the femoral nerve was located 28% anteriorly from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space, and in the prone position, the femoral nerve was relatively more posterior, located 18% from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral nerve was on average more posteriorly located at the L4-L5 disc space in the prone position compared to lateral decubitus. This more posterior location allows for a larger safe zone at the L4-L5 disc space, which may decrease the incidence of neurologic complications associated with Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the prone vs lateral decubitus position; however, further studies are needed to evaluate this possible clinical correlation.

Multimodality Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Alerts in 628 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases.

OBJECTIVES

To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels.

METHODS

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level (P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 (P < .03).

CONCLUSIONS

IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

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.

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.