Retrospective Analysis on Intraoperative Neuromonitoring (IOM) of Potential Nerve Injury in Scoliosis Correction Surgery

Omat Rachmat, Dohar AL Tobing, Ilma Fiddiyanti, Rr. Nur Fauziyah, Jenifer Kiem Aviani, Rr. Anisa Siwianti Handayani

Abstract


Iatrogenic spinal injury resulting in paraplegia or paraparesis after surgical correction of scoliosis deformity is a rare complication but is very detrimental to the patient. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring (IOM) has become the gold standard to monitor surgical procedures which has potential risks to damage the spinal cord. This study  aimed to retrospectively analyze the role of IOM in predicting the severity and extent of neurological injury during and after spinal correction surgery in adult idiopathic scoliosis cases related to surgical variables. This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Central Hospital, Fatmawati Central Hospital, and dr. Drajat Prawiranegara General Hospital during the period of 20 March 2018 to 20 August 2019. The primary outcomes were intraoperative monitoring status and post-operative neurological deficits status. Confounder data on scoliosis correction degree, intraoperative hemorrhage, and type of anesthesia used during surgery were retrieved. Chi-Square statistic was used in the analysis. Out of the ninety three patients eligible for this study, twenty two patients was detected as positive in IOM assessment. Four of the patients were found to be positive for post-operative neuromuscular defect. Thereby it can be concluded that IOM procedure can effectively prevent neurological deficits post-surgery with 81.8% specificity and 95.7% sensitivity among thosepositively detected by IOM. Some of the factors that could potentially influence false positive IOM results such as anesthetic used; dosage and administration procedures; magnitude of the scoliosis correction angle; and amount of bleeding during surgery have to be carefully analyzed.


Keywords


Anesthesia; intraoperative neuromonitoring; neurological deficits; scoliosis; surgery

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hamilton DK, Smith JS, Sansur CA, Glassman SD, Ames CP, Berven SH, et al. Rates of new neurological deficit associated with spine surgery based on 108,419 procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(15):1218–28.

Pastorelli F, Di Silvestre M, Plasmati R, Michelucci R, Greggi T, Morigi A, et al. The prevention of neural complications in the surgical treatment of scoliosis: the role of the neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(Suppl 1):S105–14.

Krueger H, Noonan VK, Trenaman LM, Joshi P, Rivers CS. The economic burden of traumatic spinal cord Injury in Canada. Chronic Dis Inj Can. 2013;33(3):113–22.

Craig A, Wijesuriya N, Tran Y. The influence of self-efficacy on mood states in people with spinal cord injury. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013;2013:1–6.

Charalampidis A, Jiang F, Wilson J, Badhiwala JH, Brodke DS, Fehlings MG. The Use of Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring in Spine Surgery. Global Spine J. 2020;10(1 Suppl):S104–14.

Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G, Legatt AD, Lopez J, Minahan R, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;29(1): 101–8.

Tsirikos AI, Duckworth AD, Henderson LE, Michaelson C. Multimodal intraoperative spinal cord monitoring during spinal deformity surgery: efficacy, diagnostic characteristics, and algorithm development. Med Princ Pract. 2020;29(1):6–17.

MacDonald DB, Skinner S, Shils J, Yingling C. Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring–a position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013; 124(12):2291–316.

Lo Y, Dan Y, Tan Y, Teo A, Tan S, Yue W, et al. Clinical and physiological effects of transcranial electrical stimulation position on motor evoked potentials in scoliosis surgery. Scoliosis. 2010;5:3.

San-juan D, Escanio Cortés M, Tena-Suck M, Garduno AJO, Pizano JAL, Dominguez JV, et al. Neurophysiological intraoperative monitoring during an optic nerve schwannoma removal.2017;31(5):1059–64.

Chung S, Park C, Seo D, Kong DS, Park SK. Intraoperative visual evoked potential has no association with postoperative visual outcomes in transsphenoidal surgery. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2012;154(8):1505–10.

Rajan S, Simon MV, Nair DG. Intraoperative visual evoked potentials: there is more to it than meets the eye. J Neurol Neurosci. 2016;7:106.

Kim SM, Kim SH, Seo D-W, Lee K-W. Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: basic principles and recent update. J Korean Med Sci. 2013;28(9):1261–9.

Stecker M, Baylor K, Wolfe J, Stevenson M. Acute nerve stretch and the compound motor action potential. J Brachial Plex Peripher Nerve Inj. 2011;6(1):4.

Park JH, Hyun SJ. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spinal surgery. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(9):765–73.

Lall RR, Lall RR, Hauptman JS, Munoz C, Cybulski GR, Koski T, et al. Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: indications, efficacy, and role of the preoperative checklist. Neurosurg Focus. 2012;33(5):E10.

Breitkopf M, Bisdas S, Liebsch M, Behling F, Bender B, Tatagiba M, et al. Safety, utility, and clinical results of continuous intraoperative electrophysiologic monitoring in 1.5 T iMRI-guided surgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;106:198–205.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15395/mkb.v53n1.2123

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 639 times
PDF - 425 times

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.


 


Creative Commons License
MKB is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 


View My Stats