Top

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Trial-to-trial latency variability of somatosensory evoked potentials as a prognostic indicator for surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Authors: Hongyan Cui, Yazhou Wang, Xiang Li, Xiaobo Xie, Shengpu Xu, Yong Hu

Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation | Issue 1/2015

Abstract

Background

Early detection of neural conductivity changes at the compressed spinal cord is important for predicting the surgical outcomes of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). The prognostic value of median nerve somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) has been proposed previously. The present prospective study evaluates the use of trial-to-trial variability in SEP as a valuable predictor of neurological recovery after surgery of CSM.

Methods

A total of 35 CSM patients who underwent surgery with up to 6-month follow-up were recruited in this study. SEP signals were recorded preoperatively. The single trial SEP was extracted by a newly developed second-order blind identification method. The postoperative recovery was assessed using the modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association. The correlation between the latency variability of trial-to-trial SEP and post-operative recovery ratio was analyzed. The prognostic value of trial-to-trial SEP for CSM was evaluated using a receiver operator characteristic curve which can accurately reflect the relationship between sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic method and represent the accuracy of prognosis.

Results

The correlation coefficient of trial-to-trial latency variability and the 6-month recovery ratio was statistically significant (r = −0.82, P < 0.01). The trial-to-trial SEP had a higher prognostic accuracy (AUC = 0.928, P < 0.001) with an optimal prognostic value of 9.25 % compared with averaged SEP when the threshold of recovery ratio was 40 %, and was more sensitive (93.80 %) than the averaged SEP (43.80 %).

Conclusions

These findings indicate that the latency variability of trial-to-trial SEP reflect the recovery ratio of CSM patients after surgery. It is suggested that the latency variability of trial-to-trial SEP is useful for predicting the surgical outcomes for patients with CSM, which would be a potential indication of surgical treatment for CSM to help decision making of surgical planning for CSM patients.

Available only for authorised users

Baptiste D, Fehlings M. Pathophysiology of cervical myelopathy. Spine J. 2006;6(6 Suppl):190S-197S.

Liu B, Ma W, Zhu F, Guo CH, Yang WL. Comparison between anterior and posterior decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: subjective evaluation and cost analysis. Orthop Surg. 2012;4(1):47–54.PubMed

McCormick WE, Steinmetz MP, Benzel EC. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: make the difficult diagnosis, then refer for surgery. Cleve Clin J Med. 2003;70(10):899–904.PubMed

Zhang W, Zhang J, Yang J, Xue H, Cao D, Huang H, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in pretreatment evaluation of early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014;24(7):1292–8.PubMed

Li X, Cui JL, Mak KC, Luk KDK, Hu Y: Potential use of diffusion tensor imaging in level diagnosis of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine 2014, 39(10):E615-E622.

Ahn JS, Lee JK, Kim BK. Prognostic factors that affect the surgical outcome of the laminoplasty in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Clin Orthop Surg. 2010;2(2):98–104.PubMedCentralPubMed

Roh MS, Wilson-Holden TJ, Padberg AM, Park JB, Daniel Riew K. The utility of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery: how often does it prompt intervention and affect outcome? Asian spine journal. 2007;1(1):43–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

Bednarik J, Kadanka Z, Vohánka S, Stejskal L, Vlach O, Schröder R. The value of somatosensory- and motor-evoked potentials in predicting and monitoring the effect of therapy in spondylotic cervical myelopathy. Prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1999;24(15):1593–8.

Kadanka Z, Mares M, Bednarik J, Smrcka V, Krbec M, Chaloupka R, et al. Predictive factors for spondylotic cervical myelopathy treated conservatively or surgically. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(1):55–63.PubMed

10.

Hu Y, Ding Y, Ruan D, Wong YW, Cheung KMC, Luk KDK. Prognostic value of somatosensory-evoked potentials in the surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine. 2008;33(10):E305–10.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Morishita Y, Hida S, Naito M, Matsushima U. Evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy using somatosensory-evoked potentials. Int Orthop. 2005;29(6):343–6.PubMedCentralPubMed

12.

Bouchard JA, Bohlman HH, Biro C. Intraoperative improvements of somatosensory evoked potentials: correlation to clinical outcome in surgery for cervical spondylitic myelopathy. Spine. 1996;21(5):589–94.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ma Y, Hu Y, Valentin N, Geocadin RG, Thakor NV, Jia X. Time jitter of somatosensory evoked potentials in recovery from hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci Methods. 2011;201(2):355–60.PubMedCentralPubMed

14.

Nakai S, Sonoo M, Shimizu T. Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) for the evaluation of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: utility of the onset-latency parameters. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119(10):2396–404.PubMed

15.

Hu Y, Luk KDK, Lu WW, Leong JCY. Application of time-frequency analysis to somatosensory evoked potential for intraoperative spinal cord monitoring. J Neurol Neurosur Ps. 2003;74(1):82–7.

16.

Hu Y, Liu HT, Luk KDK. Signal-to-noise ratio of intraoperative tibial nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;27(1):30–3.PubMed

17.

Yu WR, Liu T, Kiehl TR, Fehlings MG. Human neuropathological and animal model evidence supporting a role for Fas-mediated apoptosis and inflammation in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 5):1277–92.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Nowak J, Hagerman I, Ylen M, Nyquist O, Sylven C. Electrocardiogram signal variance analysis in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease–a comparison with exercise stress test in an angiographically documented high prevalence population. Clin Cardiol. 1993;16(9):671–82.PubMed

19.

Liu HT, Xie XB, Xu SP, Wan F, Hu Y. One-unit second-order blind identification with reference for short transient signals. Inform Sciences. 2013;227:90–101.

20.

Hu L, Zhang ZG, Hung YS, Luk KD, Iannetti GD, Hu Y. Single-trial detection of somatosensory evoked potentials by probabilistic independent component analysis and wavelet filtering. Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;122(7):1429–39.PubMed

21.

Liu HT, Chang CQ, Luk KDK, Hu Y. Comparison of blind source separation methods in fast somatosensory-evoked potential detection. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2011;28(2):170–7.PubMed

22.

Kearney RE. Evaluation of the Wiener filter applied to evoked EMG potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1979;46(4):475–8.PubMed

23.

Ting KH, Fung PC, Chang CQ, Chan FH. Automatic correction of artifact from single-trial event-related potentials by blind source separation using second order statistics only. Med Eng Phys. 2006;28(8):780–94.PubMed

24.

Tavy DL, Wagner GL, Keunen RW, Wattendorff AR, Hekster RE, Franssen H. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: clinical and radiological correlations. Muscle Nerve. 1994;17(2):235–41.PubMed

25.

Wen CY, Cui JL, Liu HS, Mak KC, Cheung WY, Luk KDK, et al. Is diffusion anisotropy a biomarker for disease severity and surgical prognosis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy? Radiology. 2014;270(1):197–204.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (Roc) curve. Radiology. 1982;143(1):29–36.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nakamura M, Fujiyoshi K, Tsuji O, Konomi T, Hosogane N, Watanabe K, et al. Clinical significance of diffusion tensor tractography as a predictor of functional recovery after laminoplasty in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(2):147–52.PubMed

28.

Holly LT, Moftakhar P, Khoo LT, Shamie AN, Wang JC. Surgical outcomes of elderly patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Surg Neurol. 2008;69(3):233–40.PubMed

29.

Suri A, Chabbra RP, Mehta VS, Gaikwad S, Pandey RM. Effect of intramedullary signal changes on the surgical outcome of patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2003;3(1):33–45.PubMed

30.

Hoshiyama M, Kakigi R. New concept for the recovery function of short-latency somatosensory evoked cortical potentials following median nerve stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;113(4):535–41.PubMed

31.

Matsukado Y, Yoshida M, Goya T, Shimoji K. Classification of cervical spondylosis or disc protrusion by preoperative evoked spinal electrogram. Follow-up study. J Neurosurg. 1976;44(4):435–41.PubMed

32.

Makeig S, Jung TP, Bell AJ, Ghahremani D, Sejnowski TJ. Blind separation of auditory event-related brain responses into independent components. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94(20):10979–84.PubMedCentralPubMed

33.

Beckmann CF, Smith SM. Probabilistic independent component analysis for functional magnetic resonance imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2004;23(2):137–52.PubMed

34.

Lin QH, Zheng YR, Yin FL, Liang HL, Calhoun VD. A fast algorithm for one-unit ICA-R. Inform Sciences. 2007;177(5):1265–75.

35.

Tang AC, Sutherland MT, McKinney CJ. Validation of SOBI components from high-density EEG. Neuroimage. 2005;25(2):539–53.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Trial-to-trial latency variability of somatosensory evoked potentials as a prognostic indicator for surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy
Authors: Hongyan Cui
Yazhou Wang
Xiang Li
Xiaobo Xie
Shengpu Xu
Yong Hu
Publication date: 01-12-2015
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1743-0003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0042-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Trial-to-trial latency variability of somatosensory evoked potentials as a prognostic indicator for surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Robotic pilot study for analysing spasticity: clinical data versus healthy controls

Kinematic measures of Arm-trunk movements during unilateral and bilateral reaching predict clinically important change in perceived arm use in daily activities after intensive stroke rehabilitation

The feasibility of a brain-computer interface functional electrical stimulation system for the restoration of overground walking after paraplegia

The effects of different sensory augmentation on weight-shifting balance exercises in Parkinson’s disease and healthy elderly people: a proof-of-concept study

Improving activity recognition using a wearable barometric pressure sensor in mobility-impaired stroke patients

Characterizing functional connectivity patterns during saliva swallows in different head positions