Search

While epidural stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord has emerged as a powerful modality for recovery of movement, how it should be targeted to the cervical spinal cord to activate arm and hand muscles is not well-understood, particularly in humans. We sought to map muscle responses to posterior epidural cervical spinal cord stimulation in humans. We hypothesized that lateral stimulation over the dorsal root entry zone would be most effective, and responses would be strongest in the muscles innervated by the stimulated segment. Twenty-five people undergoing clinically indicated cervical spine surgery were consented to map motor responses. During surgery, stimulation was performed in midline and lateral positions at multiple exposed segments; six arm and three leg muscles were recorded on each side of the body. Across all segments and muscles tested, lateral stimulation produced stronger muscle responses than midline despite similar latency and shape of responses. Muscles innervated at a cervical segment had the largest responses from stimulation at that segment, but responses were also observed in muscles innervated at other cervical segments and in leg muscles. The cervical responses were clustered in rostral (C4-C6) and caudal (C7-T1) cervical segments. Strong responses to lateral stimulation are likely due to the proximity of stimulation to afferent axons. Small changes in response sizes to stimulation of adjacent cervical segments argues for local circuit integration, and distant muscle responses suggest activation of long propriospinal connections. This map can help guide cervical stimulation to improve arm and hand function.New and noteworthyA map of muscle responses to cervical epidural stimulation during clinically indicated surgery revealed strongest activation when stimulating laterally compared to midline, and differences to be weaker than expected across different segments. In contrast, waveform shapes and latencies were most similar when stimulating midline and laterally indicating activation of overlapping circuitry. Thus, a map of the cervical spinal cord reveals organization and may help guide stimulation to activate arm and hand muscles strongly and selectively.Graphical abstract

Retrospective cohort. We present a simple classification system that is able to identify patients with increased odds of losing intraoperative neuromonitoring data during thoracic deformity correction. Type 3 spinal cords, with the cord deformed against the concave pedicle in the axial plane, have ×28 greater odds of losing monitoring data during surgery. Assess preoperative morphology of the spinal cord across the thoracic concavity to predict intraoperative loss of neuromonitoring data. 128 consecutive patients undergoing surgical correction of a thoracic deformity with pedicle screw/rod constructs were included. Spinal cords were classified into 3 types based on the appearance of the cord on the axial-T2 MRI at the apex of the curve. Type 1 is defined as a circular/symmetric cord with visible CSF between the cord and the apical concave pedicle/vertebral body. Type 2 is a circular/oval/symmetric cord with no visible CSF between the concave pedicle and the cord. Type 3 is a spinal cord that is flattened/deformed by the apical concave pedicle or vertebral body, with no intervening CSF (Fig. 1). 128 patients were reviewed: 81 (63%) Type 1; 32 (25%) Type 2; and 12 (11.7%) Type 3 spinal cords. Lower extremity trans-cranial motor-evoked Potentials (MEPs) and/or somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) were lost intraoperatively in 21 (16%) cases, with full recovery of data in 20 of those cases. On regression analysis, a Type 1 cord was protective against intraoperative data loss (OR = 0.17, p = 0.0003). Type 2 cords had no association with data loss (OR = 0.66, p = 0.49). Type 3 cords had significantly higher odds of intraoperative data loss (OR = 28.3, p

Background Transcranial motor evoked potential (TcMEP) is widely used intraoperatively to monitor spinal cord and nerve root function. To our knowledge, there is no report regarding TcMEP signal loss purely caused by patient positioning during the spinal procedure. Purpose The objective of this article is to report an intraoperative TcMEP signal loss of a patient with fixed sagittal imbalance posture along with mild hip contractures. Study Design A retrospective case report. Methods A 57-year-old man had fixed sagittal imbalance and flexed hip contractures. For a reconstruction surgery of T10 to the sacrum/ilium and L5 pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), he was put in a prone position on a Jackson table. In order to accommodate his fixed hip flexion contracture, thigh pads were not used and pillows were placed under his bilateral thighs for cushioning. TcMEPs were used to assess lumbar nerve root function. Ten minutes after incision, bilateral vastus medialis TcMEPs were lost during spine exposure whereas all other data remained normal at baseline. The bilateral lower extremities were repositioned, with the knees flexed into a sling position to increase hip flexion. Five minutes after repositioning, the bilateral vastus medialis TcMEPs gradually improved and maintained baseline amplitude during the remainder of the surgery. Results No muscle weakness was detected immediately after surgery. The patient was discharged day 6 postoperatively with markedly improved posture and alignment. Conclusion Insufficient hip flexion in patients with fixed sagittal imbalance and hip flexion contractures may cause TcMEP signal changes in the quadriceps response. TcMEP monitoring of bilateral lower extremities is highly recommended for patients with sagittal imbalance and hip contractures, with consideration for lower extremity repositioning when data degradation does not correlate with the actual spinal procedure being performed.

Study Design: Literature review. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the available intraoperative monitoring techniques and the evidence around their efficacy in vertebral column resection. Methods: The history of neuromonitoring and evolution of the modalities are reviewed and discussed. The authors’ specific surgical techniques and preferred methods are outlined in detail. In addition, the authors’ experience and the literature regarding vertebral column resection and surgical mitigation of neurologic alarms are discussed at length. Results: Risk factors for signal changes have been identified, including preoperative neurologic deficit, severe kyphosis, increased curve magnitude, and significant cord shortening. Even though no evidence-based treatment algorithm exist for signal changes, strategies are discussed that can help prevent alarms and address them appropriately. Conclusion: Through implementation of multimodal intraoperative monitoring techniques, potential neurologic injuries are localized and managed in real time. Intraoperative monitoring is a valuable tool for improving the safety and outcome of spinal deformity surgery.

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE To assess the value of the deformity angular ratio (DAR, maximum Cobb measurement divided by number of vertebrae involved) in evaluating the severity of spinal deformity, and predicting the risk of neurologic deficit in posterior vertebral column resection (PVCR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Although the literature has demonstrated that PVCR in spinal deformity patients has achieved excellent outcomes, it is still high risk neurologically. This study, to our knowledge, is the largest series of PVCR patients from a single center, evaluating deformity severity, and potential neurologic deficit risk. METHODS A total of 202 consecutive pediatric and adult patients undergoing PVCRs from November 2002 to September 2014 were reviewed. The DAR (coronal DAR, sagittal DAR, and total DAR) was used to evaluate the complexity of the deformity. RESULTS The incidence of spinal cord monitoring (SCM) events was 20.5%. Eight patients (4.0%) had new neurologic deficits. Patients with a high total DAR (≥25) were significantly younger (20.3 vs. 29.0 yr, P = 0.001), had more severe coronal and sagittal deformities, were more myelopathic (33.3% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.000), needed larger vertebral resections (1.8 vs. 1.3, P = 0.000), and had a significantly higher rate of SCM events than seen in the low total DAR (