J Korean Neurosurg Soc.  2021 Jan;64(1):78-87. 10.3340/jkns.2020.0111.

Successful Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring in Cervical Myelopathy : Related Factors and the Effect of Increased Stimulation Intensity

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurosurgery and Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Abstract


Objective
: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has been widely used during spine surgery to reduce or prevent neurologic deficits, however, its application to the surgical management for cervical myelopathy remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the success rate of IONM in patients with cervical myelopathy and to investigate the factors associated with successful baseline monitoring and the effect of increasing the stimulation intensity by focusing on motor evoked potentials (MEPs).
Methods
: The data of 88 patients who underwent surgery for cervical myelopathy with IONM between January 2016 and June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The success rate of baseline MEP monitoring at the initial stimulation of 400 V was investigated. In unmonitorable cases, the stimulation intensity was increased to 999 V, and the success rate final MEP monitoring was reinvestigated. In addition, factors related to the success rate of baseline MEP monitoring were investigated using independent t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-squared test, and Fisher’s exact probability test for statistical analysis. The factors included age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, smoking history, symptom duration, Torg-Pavlov ratio, space available for the cord (SAC), cord compression ratio (CCR), intramedullary increased signal intensity (SI) on magnetic resonance imaging, SI length, SI ratio, the Medical Research Council (MRC) grade, the preoperative modified Nurick grade and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score.
Results
: The overall success rate for reliable MEP response was 52.3% after increasing the stimulation intensity. No complications were observed to be associated with increased intensity. The factors related to the success rate of final MEP monitoring were found to be SAC (p<0.001), CCR (p<0.001), MRC grade (p<0.001), preoperative modified Nurick grade (p<0.001), and JOA score (p<0.001). The cut-off score for successful MEP monitoring was 5.67 mm for SAC, 47.33% for the CCR, 3 points for MRC grade, 2 points for the modified Nurick grade, and 12 points for the JOA score.
Conclusion
: Increasing the stimulation intensity could significantly improve the success rate of baseline MEP monitoring for unmonitorable cases at the initial stimulation in cervical myelopathy. In particular, the SAC, CCR, MRC grade, preoperative Nurick grade and JOA score may be considered as the more important related factors associated with the success rate of MEP monitoring. Therefore, the degree of preoperative neurological functional deficits and the presence of spinal cord compression on imaging could be used as new detailed criteria for the application of IONM in patients with cervical myelopathy.

Keyword

Cervical myelopathy; Evoked potentials, Motor; Success rate; Stimulation intensity

Figure

  • Fig. 1. Measurements of the preoperative radiological factors in cervical myelopathy. A : Torg-Pavlov ratio (a/b). B : Space available for the cord (b-a). C : Cord compression ratio (a/b). D : SI ratio (a/b). E : SI grade. F : SI length. SI : signal intensity.

  • Fig. 2. The graphs show the success rate of motor evoked potentials according to the signal intensity, and total success rate increased by 1.48 folds.

  • Fig. 3. The graphs show the success rate associated with each preoperative neurologic factors. A : Medical Research Council grade. B : Modified Nurick grade. C : Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association score.

  • Fig. 4. The graphs represent the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves of important relevant factors for success of obtaining motor evoked potentials (MEPs). A : Space available for the cord (SAC). B : Cord compression ratio (CCR). C : Medical Research Council (MRC) grade. D : Modified Nurick grade. E : Modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score.


Reference

References

1. Appel S, Biron T, Goldstein K, Ashkenazi E. Effect of intra- and extraoperative factors on the efficacy of intraoperative neuromonitoring during cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 123:e646–e651. 2019.
Article
2. Avadhani A, Rajasekaran S, Shetty AP. Comparison of prognostic value of different MRI classifications of signal intensity change in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 10:475–485. 2010.
Article
3. Ayoub C, Zreik T, Sawaya R, Domloj N, Sabbagh A, Skaf G. Significance and cost-effectiveness of somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical spine surgery. Neurol India. 58:424–428. 2010.
Article
4. Benuska J, Plisova M, Zabka M, Horvath J, Tisovsky P, Novorolsky K. The influence of anesthesia on intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring during spinal surgeries. Bratisl Lek Listy. 120:794–801. 2019.
Article
5. Bose B, Sestokas AK, Schwartz DM. Neurophysiological monitoring of spinal cord function during instrumented anterior cervical fusion. Spine J. 4:202–207. 2004.
Article
6. Calancie B, Harris W, Brindle GF, Green BA, Landy HJ. Threshold-level repetitive transcranial electrical stimulation for intraoperative monitoring of central motor conduction. J Neurosurg. 95(2 Suppl):161–168. 2001.
Article
7. Charalampidis A, Jiang F, Wilson JR, Badhiwala JH, Brodke DS, Fehlings MG. The use of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Global Spine J. 10(1_suppl):104S–114S. 2020.
Article
8. Chen X, Sterio D, Ming X, Para DD, Butusova M, Tong T, et al. Success rate of motor evoked potentials for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: effects of age, lesion location, and preoperative neurologic deficits. J Clin Neurophysiol. 24:281–285. 2007.
Article
9. Cho YE, Shin JJ, Kim KS, Chin DK, Kuh SU, Lee JH, et al. The relevance of intramedullary high signal intensity and gadolinium (Gd-DTPA) enhancement to the clinical outcome in cervical compressive myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 20:2267–2274. 2011.
Article
10. Choi JH, Shin JJ, Kim TH, Shin HS, Hwang YS, Park SK. Does intramedullary signal intensity on MRI affect the surgical outcomes of patients with ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament? J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 56:121–129. 2014.
Article
11. Clark AJ, Safaee M, Chou D, Weinstein PR, Molinaro AM, Clark JP 3rd, et al. Comparative sensitivity of intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring in predicting postoperative neurologic deficits: nondegenerative versus degenerative myelopathy. Global Spine J. 6:452–458. 2016.
Article
12. Cole T, Veeravagu A, Zhang M, Li A, Ratliff JK. Intraoperative neuromonitoring in single-level spinal procedures: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis in a national longitudinal database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 39:1950–1959. 2014.
13. Eggspuehler A, Sutter MA, Grob D, Jeszenszky D, Porchet F, Dvorak J. Multimodal intraoperative monitoring (MIOM) during cervical spine surgical procedures in 246 patients. Eur Spine J. 16(Suppl 2):209–215. 2007.
Article
14. Fouyas IP, Statham PF, Sandercock PA. Cochrane review on the role of surgery in cervical spondylotic radiculomyelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 27:736–747. 2002.
Article
15. Geng T, Zhu X, Xu C. Changes of T2WI high signal of spinal magnetic resonance imaging correlated with the 1-year postoperative improvement rate in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 12:13472–13479. 2019.
16. Gerling MC, Radcliff K, Isaacs R, Bianco K, Jalai CM, Worley NJ, et al. Two-year results of the prospective spine treatment outcomes study: an analysis of complication rates, predictors of their development, and effect on patient derived outcomes at 2 years for surgical management of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. World Neurosurg. 106:247–253. 2017.
Article
17. Halawa I, Reichert K, Sommer M, Paulus W. Increasing pulse widths and intensity increase the efficacy of high frequency rTMS in inducing excitatory aftereffects. bioRxiv. 2019; [Epub ahead of print].
18. Hilibrand AS, Schwartz DM, Sethuraman V, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ. Comparison of transcranial electric motor and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 86:1248–1253. 2004.
Article
19. Hirabayashi K, Miyakawa J, Satomi K, Maruyama T, Wakano K. Operative results and postoperative progression of ossification among patients with ossification of cervical posterior longitudinal ligament. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 6:354–364. 1981.
Article
20. Ito Z, Matsuyama Y, Shinomiya K, Ando M, Kawabata S, Kanchiku T, et al. Usefulness of multi-channels in intraoperative spinal cord monitoring: multi-center study by the Monitoring Committee of the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research. Eur Spine J. 22:1891–1896. 2013.
Article
21. Journée HL, Polak HE, de Kleuver M, Langeloo DD, Postma AA. Improved neuromonitoring during spinal surgery using double-train transcranial electrical stimulation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 42:110–113. 2004.
Article
22. Khan MH, Smith PN, Balzer JR, Crammond D, Welch WC, Gerszten P, et al. Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine corpectomy surgery: experience with 508 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 31:E105–E113. 2006.
23. Kim DG, Jo SR, Park YS, Hyun SJ, Kim KJ, Jahng TA, et al. Multi-channel motor evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2:48–53. 2017.
Article
24. 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. 33:E10. 2012.
Article
25. Lee JM, Kim DH, Kim HS, Choi BK, Han IH. The applicability of intraoperative neuromonitoring in patients with preoperative motor weakness during spine surgery. Korean J Spine. 13:9–12. 2016.
Article
26. Lee JY, Hilibrand AS, Lim MR, Zavatsky J, Zeiller S, Schwartz DM, et al. Characterization of neurophysiologic alerts during anterior cervical spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 31:1916–1922. 2006.
Article
27. Ney JP, van der Goes DN, Watanabe JH. Cost-effectiveness of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring for spinal surgeries: beginning steps. Clin Neurophysiol. 123:1705–1707. 2012.
Article
28. 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: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Neurology. 78:585–589. 2012.
Article
29. Park MK, Lee SJ, Kim SB, Lee KW, Lee HJ, Han EY, et al. The effect of positive changes during intraoperative monitoring of the functional improvement in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Clin Interv Aging. 13:1211–1218. 2018.
Article
30. Rajshekhar V, Velayutham P, Joseph M, Babu KS. Factors predicting the feasibility of monitoring lower-limb muscle motor evoked potentials in patients undergoing excision of spinal cord tumors. J Neurosurg Spine. 14:748–753. 2011.
Article
31. Sala F, Palandri G, Basso E, Lanteri P, Deletis V, Faccioli F, et al. Motor evoked potential monitoring improves outcome after surgery for intramedullary spinal cord tumors: a historical control study. Neurosurgery. 58:1129–1143. discussion 1129-1143. 2006.
Article
32. Smith PN, Balzer JR, Khan MH, Davis RA, Crammond D, Welch WC, et al. Intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in nonmyelopathic patients--a review of 1,039 cases. Spine J. 7:83–87. 2007.
Article
33. Taunt CJ Jr, Sidhu KS, Andrew SA. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 30:1970–1972. 2005.
Article
34. Traynelis VC, Abode-Iyamah KO, Leick KM, Bender SM, Greenlee JD. Cervical decompression and reconstruction without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. J Neurosurg Spine. 16:107–113. 2012.
Article
35. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Sato R, Kokubo Y, Yayama T, Kobayashi S, et al. Multivariate analysis of the neurological outcome of surgery for cervical compressive myelopathy. J Orthop Sci. 10:564–573. 2005.
Article
36. Uchida K, Nakajima H, Takeura N, Yayama T, Guerrero AR, Yoshida A, et al. Prognostic value of changes in spinal cord signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy. Spine J. 14:1601–1610. 2014.
Article
37. Wang S, Tian Y, Wang C, Lu X, Zhuang Q, Peng H, et al. Prognostic value of intraoperative MEP signal improvement during surgical treatment of cervical compressive myelopathy. Eur Spine J. 25:1875–1880. 2016.
Article
38. Wei L, Wei Y, Tian Y, Cao P, Yuan W. Does three-grade classification of T2-weighted increased signal intensity reflect the severity of myelopathy and surgical outcomes in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 43:967–976. 2020.
Article
39. Xu R, Ritzl EK, Sait M, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, et al. A role for motor and somatosensory evoked potentials during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for patients without myelopathy: analysis of 57 consecutive cases. Surg Neurol Int. 2:133. 2011.
Article
40. Zileli M, Borkar SA, Sinha S, Reinas R, Alves ÓL, Kim SH, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: natural course and the value of diagnostic techniques -WFNS Spine Committee Recommendations. Neurospine. 16:386–402. 2019.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JKNS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr