AO Spine/Praxis Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Acute Spinal Cord Injury: An Introduction to a Focus Issue

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative overview and summary.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this introductory manuscript is to provide an overview of the effort that was undertaken to establish clinical practice guidelines for a number of important topics in spinal cord injury (SCI). These topics included: 1. The role and timing of surgical decompression after acute traumatic SCI; 2. The hemodynamic management of acute traumatic SCI; and 3. The definition, diagnosis, and management of intra-operative SCI. Here, we introduce the rationale for the guidelines, the methodology utilized, and summarize how the topics are addressed within various manuscripts of this Focus Issue.

METHODS

The key clinical questions were defined using the PICO format for treatment reviews (patient; intervention; comparison; outcomes) or PPO format (patient, prognostic factor, outcomes) for risk factor review. Multi-disciplinary, international guideline development groups (GDGs) were established to evaluate and collate the available evidence in a rigorous, systematic manner, followed by a review of systematically obtained evidence within the framework of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria and application of the Evidence to Decision process. Consensus meetings, using a modified Delphi approach, were held with the multidisciplinary, international GDGs using online video-conferencing technology and anonymous voting to develop the final recommendations for each of the topics addressed. All systematic review protocols followed PRISMA standards and were registered on PROSPERO; all potential conflicts were vetted in an open and transparent manner. The funders (AO Spine and Praxis Spinal Cord Institute) had no influence over editorial content or the guidelines process).

RESULTS

Updated guidelines were established for the timing of surgical decompression after acute SCI, with surgical decompression within 24 hours of injury now "recommended" as a treatment option. Updated guidelines were also established for hemodynamic management, with an expanded target range for mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 75-80 to 90-95 mmHg for between 3 to 7 days post-injury now "suggested" as a treatment option. The available literature mandated scoping and systematic reviews on the topic of intra-operative SCI, and this resulted in manuscripts to address the definition, frequency, and risk factors, to define the role of intra-operative neuromonitoring, and to suggest an evidence-based care pathway for management.

CONCLUSION

A rigorous process following GRADE standards was undertaken to review the available evidence and establish guideline recommendations around the role and timing of surgery in acute SCI, optimal hemodynamic management of acute SCI and the prevention, diagnosis and management of intraoperative SCI. This effort also identified key knowledge gaps and future directions for study, which will serve to refine these recommendations in the future.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in the Diagnosis of Intraoperative Neurological Decline in the Setting of Spinal Surgery-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

In an effort to prevent intraoperative neurological injury during spine surgery, the use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has increased significantly in recent years. Using IONM, spinal cord function can be evaluated intraoperatively by recording signals from specific nerve roots, motor tracts, and sensory tracts. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies to evaluate the efficacy of IONM among patients undergoing spine surgery for any indication.

METHODS

The current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) and was registered on PROSPERO. A comprehensive search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and SCOPUS for all studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of neuromonitoring, including somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP), motor evoked potential (MEP) and electromyography (EMG), either on their own or in combination (multimodal). Studies were included if they reported raw numbers for True Positives (TP), False Negatives (FN), False Positives (FP) and True Negative (TN) either in a 2 × 2 contingency table or in text, and if they used postoperative neurologic exam as a reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated to evaluate the overall efficacy of each modality type using a bivariate model adapted by Reitsma et al, for all spine surgeries and for individual disease groups and regions of spine. The risk of bias (ROB) of included studies was assessed using the quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2).

RESULTS

A total of 163 studies were included; 52 of these studies with 16,310 patients reported data for SSEP, 68 studies with 71,144 patients reported data for MEP, 16 studies with 7888 patients reported data for EMG and 69 studies with 17,968 patients reported data for multimodal monitoring. The overall sensitivity, specificity, DOR and AUC for SSEP were 71.4% (95% CI 54.8-83.7), 97.1% (95% CI 95.3-98.3), 41.9 (95% CI 24.1-73.1) and .899, respectively; for MEP, these were 90.2% (95% CI 86.2-93.1), 96% (95% CI 94.3-97.2), 103.25 (95% CI 69.98-152.34) and .927; for EMG, these were 48.3% (95% CI 31.4-65.6), 92.9% (95% CI 84.4-96.9), 11.2 (95% CI 4.84-25.97) and .773; for multimodal, these were found to be 83.5% (95% CI 81-85.7), 93.8% (95% CI 90.6-95.9), 60 (95% CI 35.6-101.3) and .895, respectively. Using the QUADAS-2 ROB analysis, of the 52 studies reporting on SSEP, 13 (25%) were high-risk, 10 (19.2%) had some concerns and 29 (55.8%) were low-risk; for MEP, 8 (11.7%) were high-risk, 21 had some concerns and 39 (57.3%) were low-risk; for EMG, 4 (25%) were high-risk, 3 (18.75%) had some concerns and 9 (56.25%) were low-risk; for multimodal, 14 (20.3%) were high-risk, 13 (18.8%) had some concerns and 42 (60.7%) were low-risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that all neuromonitoring modalities have diagnostic utility in successfully detecting impending or incident intraoperative neurologic injuries among patients undergoing spine surgery for any condition, although it is clear that the accuracy of each modality differs.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42023384158.