Efficacy of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring during the Treatment of Cervical Myelopathy

Abstract

Objective The accuracy of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) during surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) to detect iatrogenic nervous system injuries while they are reversible remains unknown. We evaluated a cohort of patients who had IONM during surgery to assess accuracy.

Methods Patients who underwent surgical treatment of CSM that included IONM from January 2018 through August 2018 were retrospectively identified. A standardized protocol was used for operative management. Clinical changes and postoperative neurological deficits were evaluated.

Results Among 131 patients in whom IONM was used during their procedure, 42 patients (age 58.2 ± 16.3 years, 54.8% males) showed IONM changes and 89 patients had no change. The reasons for IONM changes varied, and some patients had changes detected via multiple modalities: electromyography (n = 25, 59.5%), somatosensory-evoked potentials (n = 14, 33.3%), motor evoked potentials (n = 13, 31.0%). Three patients, all having baseline deficits before surgery, had postoperative deficits. Among the 89 patients without an IONM change, 4 showed worsened postoperative deficits, which were also seen at last follow-up. The sensitivity of IONM for predicting postoperative neurological change was 42.86% and the specificity was 68.55%. However, most patients (124, 94.7%) in whom IONM was used showed no worsened neurological deficit.

Conclusion IONM shows potential in ensuring stable postoperative neurological outcomes in most patients; however, its clinical use and supportive guidelines remain controversial. In our series, prediction of neurological deficits was poor in contrast to some previous studies. Further refinement of clinical and electrophysiological variables is needed to uniformly predict postoperative neurological outcomes.

Keywords

cervical spondylotic myelopathy - degenerative cervical myelopathy - electromyography - intraoperative neuromonitoring

^* Contributed equally.

Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2023

• References

• 1 Takeda M, Yamaguchi S, Mitsuhara T, Abiko M, Kurisu K. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring for degenerative cervical myelopathy. Neurosurg Clin N Am 2018; 29 (01) 159-167
• 2 Wiedemayer H, Fauser B, Sandalcioglu IE, Schäfer H, Stolke D. The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring on surgical decisions: a critical analysis of 423 cases. J Neurosurg 2002; 96 (02) 255-262
• 3 Scibilia A, Terranova C, Rizzo V. et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological mapping and monitoring in spinal tumor surgery: sirens or indispensable tools?. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 41 (02) E18
• 4 Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP. et al. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (11) 2440-2449
• 5 Sala F, Dvorak J, Faccioli F. Cost effectiveness of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgery. Eur Spine J 2007; 16 (Suppl 2, Suppl 2): S229-S231
• 6 Ibrahim T, Mrowczynski O, Zalatimo O. et al. The impact of neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring during spinal cord and spine surgery: a critical analysis of 121 cases. Cureus 2017; 9 (11) e1861
• 7 Decruz J, Kaliya-Perumal AK, Wong KH, Kumar DS, Yang EW, Oh JY. Neuromonitoring in cervical spine surgery: when is a signal drop clinically significant?. Asian Spine J 2021; 15 (03) 317-323
• 8 Shim HK, Lee JM, Kim DH, Nam KH, Choi BK, Han IH. Successful motor evoked potential monitoring in cervical myelopathy: related factors and the effect of increased stimulation intensity. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2021; 64 (01) 78-87
• 9 Taylor AJ, Combs K, Kay RD, Bryman J, Tye EY, Rolfe K. Combined motor and sensory intraoperative neuromonitoring for cervical spondylotic myelopathy surgery causes confusion: a level-1 diagnostic study. Spine 2021; 46 (22) E1185-E1191
• 10 Wang S, Ren Z, Liu J, Zhang J, Tian Y. The prediction of intraoperative cervical cord function changes by different motor evoked potentials phenotypes in cervical myelopathy patients. BMC Neurol 2020; 20 (01) 221
• 11 Laratta JL, Shillingford JN, Ha A. et al. Utilization of intraoperative neuromonitoring throughout the United States over a recent decade: an analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample. J Spine Surg 2018; 4 (02) 211-219
• 12 Resnick DK, Anderson PA, Kaiser MG. et al; Joint Section on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Electrophysiological monitoring during surgery for cervical degenerative myelopathy and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 11 (02) 245-252
• 13 Thirumala PD, Muralidharan A, Loke YK, Habeych M, Crammond D, Balzer J. Value of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring to reduce neurological complications in patients undergoing anterior cervical spine procedures for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 25: 27-35
• 14 Hadley MN, Shank CD, Rozzelle CJ, Walters BC. Guidelines for the use of electrophysiological monitoring for surgery of the human spinal column and spinal cord. Neurosurgery 2017; 81 (05) 713-732
• 15 Daniel JW, Botelho RV, Milano JB. et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine 2018; 43 (16) 1154-1160
• 16 Ajiboye RM, D'Oro A, Ashana AO. et al. Routine use of intraoperative neuromonitoring during ACDFs for the treatment of spondylotic myelopathy and radiculopathy is questionable: a review of 15,395 cases. Spine 2017; 42 (01) 14-19
• 17 Nurick S. The pathogenesis of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972; 95 (01) 87-100
• 18 Morledge DE, Stecker M. The American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring position statements project. J Clin Monit Comput 2006; 20 (01) 43-46
• 19 Clark AJ, Ziewacz JE, Safaee M. et al. Intraoperative neuromonitoring with MEPs and prediction of postoperative neurological deficits in patients undergoing surgery for cervical and cervicothoracic myelopathy. Neurosurg Focus 2013; 35 (01) E7
• 20 Clark AJ, Safaee M, Chou D. et al. Comparative sensitivity of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring in predicting postoperative neurologic deficits: nondegenerative versus degenerative myelopathy. Global Spine J 2016; 6 (05) 452-458
• 21 Oya J, Burke JF, Vogel T, Tay B, Chou D, Mummaneni P. The accuracy of multimodality intraoperative neuromonitoring to predict postoperative neurologic deficits following cervical laminoplasty. World Neurosurg 2017; 106: 17-25
• 22 Fan D, Schwartz DM, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Albert TJ. Intraoperative neurophysiologic detection of iatrogenic C5 nerve root injury during laminectomy for cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 2002; 27 (22) 2499-2502
• 23 Kim DH, Zaremski J, Kwon B. et al. Risk factors for false positive transcranial motor evoked potential monitoring alerts during surgical treatment of cervical myelopathy. Spine 2007; 32 (26) 3041-3046
• 24 Lin X, Li C, Lin Q, Zheng Z. Intraoperative neuromonitoring loss in abnormal magnetic resonance imaging signal intensity from patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. J Neurol Sci 2017; 381: 235-239
• 25 Acharya S, Palukuri N, Gupta P, Kohli M. Transcranial motor evoked potentials during spinal deformity corrections-safety, efficacy, limitations, and the role of a checklist. Front Surg 2017; 4: 8
• 26 Vitale MG, Skaggs DL, Pace GI. et al. Best practices in intraoperative neuromonitoring in spine deformity surgery: development of an intraoperative checklist to optimize response. Spine Deform 2014; 2 (05) 333-339
• 27 Ziewacz JE, Berven SH, Mummaneni VP. et al. The design, development, and implementation of a checklist for intraoperative neuromonitoring changes. Neurosurg Focus 2012; 33 (05) E11