Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 1/2011

01-05-2011 | Original Article

The prevention of neural complications in the surgical treatment of scoliosis: the role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring

Authors: F. Pastorelli, M. Di Silvestre, R. Plasmati, R. Michelucci, T. Greggi, A. Morigi, M. R. Bacchin, S. Bonarelli, A. Cioni, F. Vommaro, N. Fini, F. Lolli, P. Parisini

Published in: European Spine Journal | Special Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Iatrogenic spinal cord injury is the most feared complication of scoliosis surgery. The importance of combined somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) and motor evoked potentials (MEP) monitoring during spine surgery is well known. The current authors retrospectively evaluated the results of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring (IOM) in a large population of patients who underwent surgical treatment for spinal deformity. Intraoperative monitoring of SEPs and transcranial electrical stimulation MEPs (TES-MEP) was performed in 172 successive patients who underwent surgical treatment of idiopathic (128 pts), congenital (15 pts) or syndromic (29 pts) scoliosis. The first 106 patients (Group 1) underwent only SEP monitoring, while the other 66 patients (Group 2) underwent combined SEP and TES-MEP monitoring, when the technique was introduced in the current authors’ institution. Halogenate anaesthesia (Sevoflurane, MAC 0.6–1.2) was performed in Group 1 cases, total intravenous anaesthesia (Propofol infusion, 6–10 mg/kg/h) in Group 2 patients. A neurophysiological “alert” was defined as a reduction in amplitude (unilateral or bilateral) of at least 50% for SEPs and of 65% for TES-MEPs compared with baseline. In Group 1, two patients (1.9%) developed postoperative neurologic deficits following surgical correction of spinal deformity, consisting of permanent paraparesis in one case and transient paraparesis secondary to spinal cord ischaemia in the other. Twelve patients presented intraoperative significant changes of neurophysiological parameters that improved following corrective actions by surgeons and anaesthesiologists, and did not show any postoperative neurologic deficits. In ten cases the alert was apparently unrelated to surgical manoeuvres or to pharmacological interventions and no postoperative neurologic deficits were noted. Considering the patients of Group 2, two patients (3.0%) presented transient postoperative neurologic deficits preceded by significant intraoperative changes in SEPs and TES-MEPs. In five cases a transient reduction in the amplitudes of SEPs (1 patient) and/or TES-MEPs (5 patients) was recorded intraoperatively with no postoperative neurologic deficits. In conclusion, in the current series of 172 patients the overall prevalence of postoperative neurologic deficit was 2.3% (4 patients). When combined SEP and TES-MEP monitoring was performed, the sensitivity and specificity of IOM for sensory-motor impairment was 100 and 98%, respectively. Combined SEP and TES-MEP monitoring must be regarded as the neurophysiological standard for intraoperative detection of emerging spinal cord injury during corrective spinal deformity surgery. Early detection affords the surgical team an opportunity to perform rapid intervention to prevent injury progression or possibly to reverse impending neurologic sequelae.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Diab M, Smith AR, Kuklo TR, The Spinal Deformity Study Group et al (2007) Neural complications in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2759–2763PubMedCrossRef Diab M, Smith AR, Kuklo TR, The Spinal Deformity Study Group et al (2007) Neural complications in the surgical treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine 32:2759–2763PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Qiu Y, Wang S, Wang B et al (2008) Incidence, risk factors of neurological deficits of surgical correction for scoliosis. analysis of 1373 cases at one Chinese institution. Spine 33:519–526PubMedCrossRef Qiu Y, Wang S, Wang B et al (2008) Incidence, risk factors of neurological deficits of surgical correction for scoliosis. analysis of 1373 cases at one Chinese institution. Spine 33:519–526PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Vauzelle C, Stagnara P, Jouvinroux P (1973) Functional monitoring of spinal cord activity during spinal surgery. Clin Orthop 93:173–178PubMedCrossRef Vauzelle C, Stagnara P, Jouvinroux P (1973) Functional monitoring of spinal cord activity during spinal surgery. Clin Orthop 93:173–178PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Mostegl A, Bauer R, Eichenbauer M (1988) Intraoperative somatosensory potential monitoring: a clinical analysis of 127 surgical procedures. J Spine 13(4):396–400CrossRef Mostegl A, Bauer R, Eichenbauer M (1988) Intraoperative somatosensory potential monitoring: a clinical analysis of 127 surgical procedures. J Spine 13(4):396–400CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Tamaki T, Noguchi T, Takano H et al (1984) Spinal cord monitoring as a clinical utilization of the spinal evoked potential. Clin Orthop Relat Res 184:58–64PubMed Tamaki T, Noguchi T, Takano H et al (1984) Spinal cord monitoring as a clinical utilization of the spinal evoked potential. Clin Orthop Relat Res 184:58–64PubMed
6.
go back to reference Padberg AM, Wilson-Holden TJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH (1992) Somatosensory and motor evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosi surgery. Spine 23:1392–1400CrossRef Padberg AM, Wilson-Holden TJ, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH (1992) Somatosensory and motor evoked potential monitoring without a wake-up test during idiopathic scoliosi surgery. Spine 23:1392–1400CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG et al (1995) Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:6–11PubMedCrossRef Nuwer MR, Dawson EG, Carlson LG et al (1995) Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 96:6–11PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Scoliosis Research Society (1992) Position Statement on Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring of Neurological Spinal Cord Function. Scoliosis Research Society 1992 Scoliosis Research Society (1992) Position Statement on Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring of Neurological Spinal Cord Function. Scoliosis Research Society 1992
9.
go back to reference Luk KDK, Hu Y, Wong YW, Cheung KMC (2001) Evaluation of various evoked potenial techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Spine 26(16):1772–1777PubMedCrossRef Luk KDK, Hu Y, Wong YW, Cheung KMC (2001) Evaluation of various evoked potenial techniques for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. Spine 26(16):1772–1777PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sutter M, Deletis V, Dvorak J et al (2007) Current opinions and recommendations on multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgeries. Eur Spine J 16(2):S232–S237PubMedCrossRef Sutter M, Deletis V, Dvorak J et al (2007) Current opinions and recommendations on multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgeries. Eur Spine J 16(2):S232–S237PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Pajewski TN, Arlet V, Phillips LH (2007) Current approach on spinal cord monitoring: the point of view of the neurologist, the anesthesiologist and the spine surgeon. Eur Spine J 16(2):S115–S129PubMedCrossRef Pajewski TN, Arlet V, Phillips LH (2007) Current approach on spinal cord monitoring: the point of view of the neurologist, the anesthesiologist and the spine surgeon. Eur Spine J 16(2):S115–S129PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK (2002) A systems-based algorithmic approach to intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Semin Spine Surg 14:136–145 Schwartz DM, Sestokas AK (2002) A systems-based algorithmic approach to intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. Semin Spine Surg 14:136–145
13.
go back to reference Mac Ewen GD, Bunnel WP, Sriram K (1975) Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint surg 57-A(3):404–408 Mac Ewen GD, Bunnel WP, Sriram K (1975) Acute neurological complications in the treatment of scoliosis. A report of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint surg 57-A(3):404–408
14.
go back to reference Ginsburg HH, Shetter AG, Raudzens PA (1985) Postoperative paraplegia with preserved intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials. J Neurosurg 63:296–300PubMedCrossRef Ginsburg HH, Shetter AG, Raudzens PA (1985) Postoperative paraplegia with preserved intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials. J Neurosurg 63:296–300PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Pelosi L, Lamb J, Grevitt M et al (2002) Combined monitoring of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in orthopaedic spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 113:1082–1091PubMedCrossRef Pelosi L, Lamb J, Grevitt M et al (2002) Combined monitoring of motor and somatosensory evoked potentials in orthopaedic spinal surgery. Clin Neurophysiol 113:1082–1091PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Noonan KJ, Walker T, Feinberg JR et al (2002) Factors related to false- versus true-positive neuromonitoring changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine 27(8):825–830PubMedCrossRef Noonan KJ, Walker T, Feinberg JR et al (2002) Factors related to false- versus true-positive neuromonitoring changes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. Spine 27(8):825–830PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Seyal M, Mull B (2002) Mechanisms of signal change during intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):409–415PubMedCrossRef Seyal M, Mull B (2002) Mechanisms of signal change during intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):409–415PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Luk KDK, Hu Y, Wong YW, Leong JCY (1999) Variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials in different stages of scoliosis surgery. Spine 24(17):1799–1804PubMedCrossRef Luk KDK, Hu Y, Wong YW, Leong JCY (1999) Variability of somatosensory-evoked potentials in different stages of scoliosis surgery. Spine 24(17):1799–1804PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ku ASW, Hu Y, Irwin MG et al (2002) Effect of sevoflurane/nitrous oxide versus propofol anaesthesia on somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord during surgery to correct scoliosis. Br J Anaesth 88:502–507PubMedCrossRef Ku ASW, Hu Y, Irwin MG et al (2002) Effect of sevoflurane/nitrous oxide versus propofol anaesthesia on somatosensory evoked potential monitoring of the spinal cord during surgery to correct scoliosis. Br J Anaesth 88:502–507PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chen Z (2004) The effects of isoflurane and propofol on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 18:303–308PubMedCrossRef Chen Z (2004) The effects of isoflurane and propofol on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 18:303–308PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Pelosi L, Stevenson M, Hobbs GJ et al (2001) Intraoperative motor evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation during two anaesthetic regimens. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1076–1087PubMedCrossRef Pelosi L, Stevenson M, Hobbs GJ et al (2001) Intraoperative motor evoked potentials to transcranial electrical stimulation during two anaesthetic regimens. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1076–1087PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Sloan TO, Heyer EJ (2002) Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):430–443PubMedCrossRef Sloan TO, Heyer EJ (2002) Anesthesia for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of the spinal cord. J Clin Neurophysiol 19(5):430–443PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wiedemayer H, Fauser B, Sandalcioglu IE et al (2002) The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: a critical analysis of 423 cases. J Neurosurg 96:255–262PubMedCrossRef Wiedemayer H, Fauser B, Sandalcioglu IE et al (2002) The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: a critical analysis of 423 cases. J Neurosurg 96:255–262PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Devlin VJ, Schwartz DM (2007) Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spinal surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:549–560PubMed Devlin VJ, Schwartz DM (2007) Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring during spinal surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:549–560PubMed
25.
go back to reference Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP et al (2007) Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2440–2449PubMedCrossRef Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP et al (2007) Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:2440–2449PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ofiram E, Lonstein JE, Skinner S, Perra JH (2006) The disappearing evoked potentials: a special problem of positioning patients with skeletal dysplasia. Case report. Spine 31:E464–E470PubMedCrossRef Ofiram E, Lonstein JE, Skinner S, Perra JH (2006) The disappearing evoked potentials: a special problem of positioning patients with skeletal dysplasia. Case report. Spine 31:E464–E470PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Schwartz DM, Drummond DS, Hahn M et al (2000) Prevention of positional brachial plexopathy during surgical correction of scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 13(2):178–182PubMedCrossRef Schwartz DM, Drummond DS, Hahn M et al (2000) Prevention of positional brachial plexopathy during surgical correction of scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 13(2):178–182PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The prevention of neural complications in the surgical treatment of scoliosis: the role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring
Authors
F. Pastorelli
M. Di Silvestre
R. Plasmati
R. Michelucci
T. Greggi
A. Morigi
M. R. Bacchin
S. Bonarelli
A. Cioni
F. Vommaro
N. Fini
F. Lolli
P. Parisini
Publication date
01-05-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue Special Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-1756-z

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2011

European Spine Journal 1/2011 Go to the issue