Search

Study Design: Retrospective multicenter cohort study Objectives: We aimed to clarify the efficacy of multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM), especially in transcranial electrical stimulation of motor-evoked potentials (TES-MEPs) with spinal cord-evoked potentials after transcranial stimulation of the brain (D-wave) in the detection of reversible spinal cord injury in high-risk spinal surgery. Methods: We reviewed 1310 patients who underwent TES-MEPs during spinal surgery at 14 spine centers. We compared the monitoring results of TES-MEPs with D-wave vs TES-MEPs without D-wave in high-risk spinal surgery. Results: There were 40 cases that used TES-MEPs with D-wave and 1270 cases that used TES-MEPs without D-wave. Before patients were matched, there were significant differences between groups in terms of sex and spinal disease category. Although there was no significant difference in the rescue rate between TES-MEPs with D-wave (2.0%) and TES-MEPs (2.5%), the false-positivity rate was significantly lower (0%) in the TES-MEPs-with-D-wave group. Using a one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis, 40 pairs of patients from the two groups were selected. Baseline characteristics did not significantly differ between the matched groups. In the score-matched analysis, one case (2.5%) in both groups was a case of rescue (P = 1), five (12.5%) cases in the TES-MEPs group were false positives, and there were no false positives in the TES-MEPs-with-D-wave group (P =.02). Conclusions: TES-MEPs with D-wave in high-risk spine surgeries did not affect rescue case rates. However, it helped reduce the false-positivity rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study. Objectives: Although intramedullary spinal cord tumor (IMSCT) and extramedullary SCT (EMSCT) surgeries carry high risk of intraoperative motor deficits (MDs), the benefits of transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) monitoring are well-accepted; however, comparisons have not yet been conducted. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy of TcMEP monitoring during IMSCT and EMSCT resection surgeries. Methods: We prospectively reviewed TcMEP monitoring data of 81 consecutive IMSCT and 347 EMSCT patients. We compared the efficacy of interventions based on TcMEP alerts in the IMSCT and EMSCT groups. We defined our alert point as a TcMEP amplitude reduction of ≥70% from baseline. Results: In the IMSCT group, TcMEP monitoring revealed 20 true-positive (25%), 8 rescue (10%; rescue rate 29%), 10 false-positive, a false-negative, and 41 true-negative patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 80%. In the EMSCT group, TcMEP monitoring revealed 20 true-positive (6%), 24 rescue (7%; rescue rate 55%), 29 false-positive, 2 false-negative, and 263 true-negative patients, resulting in a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 90%. The most common TcMEP alert timing was during tumor resection (96% vs. 91%), and suspension surgeries with or without intravenous steroid administration were performed as intervention techniques. Conclusions: Postoperative MD rates in IMSCT and EMSCT surgeries using TcMEP monitoring were 25% and 6%, and rescue rates were 29% and 55%. We believe that the usage of TcMEP monitoring and appropriate intervention techniques during SCT surgeries might have predicted and prevented the occurrence of intraoperative MDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]