This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Spine Test 3: Perioperative Considerations/Diagnostic Modalities/Surgical R...
CME 2: April, May, June 2004
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hilibrand, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Albert, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hilibrand, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Albert, T. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Spine
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 86:1248-1253 (2004)
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Comparison of Transcranial Electric Motor and Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring During Cervical Spine Surgery

Alan S. Hilibrand, MD1, Daniel M. Schwartz, PhD, DABNM2, Venkat Sethuraman, MD1, Alexander R. Vaccaro, MD1 and Todd J. Albert, MD1

1 The Rothman Institute, 925 Chestnut Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107
2 Surgical Monitoring Associates, 25 Bala Avenue, Suite 105, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. E-mail address: danielmschwartz{at}mac.com

Investigation performed at Surgical Monitoring Associates, Bala Cynwyd, and The Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: There has been little enthusiasm for somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in cervical spine surgery as a result, in part, of the increased risk of motor tract injury at this level, to which somatosensory monitoring may be insensitive. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring allows assessment of the motor tracts; therefore, we compared transcranial electric motor evoked potential and somatosensory evoked potential monitoring during cervical spine surgery to determine the temporal relationship between the changes in the potentials demonstrated by each type of monitoring and neurological sequelae and to identify patient-related and surgical factors associated with intraoperative neurophysiological changes.

Methods: Somatosensory evoked potential and transcranial electric motor evoked potential data recorded for 427 patients undergoing anterior or posterior cervical spine surgery between January 1999 and March 2001 were analyzed. All patients who showed substantial (at least 60%) or complete unilateral or bilateral amplitude loss, for at least ten minutes, during the transcranial electric motor evoked potential and/or somatosensory evoked potential monitoring were identified.

Results: Twelve of the 427 patients demonstrated substantial or complete loss of amplitude of the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Ten of those patients had complete reversal of the loss following prompt intraoperative intervention, whereas two awoke with a new motor deficit. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring failed to identify any change in one of the two patients, and the change in the somatosensory evoked potentials lagged behind the change in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials by thirty-three minutes in the other. No patient showed loss of amplitude of the somatosensory evoked potentials in the absence of changes in the transcranial electric motor evoked potentials. Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring was 100% sensitive and 100% specific, whereas somatosensory evoked potential monitoring was only 25% sensitive; it was, however, 100% specific.

Conclusions: Transcranial electric motor evoked potential monitoring appears to be superior to conventional somatosensory evoked potential monitoring for identifying evolving motor tract injury during cervical spine surgery. Surgeons should strongly consider using this modality when operating on patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy in general and on those with ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament in particular.

Level of Evidence: Diagnostic study, Level I-1 (testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria in series of consecutive patients [with universally applied reference "gold" standard]). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
D. M. Schwartz, J. D. Auerbach, J. P. Dormans, J. Flynn, D. S. Drummond, J. A. Bowe, S. Laufer, S. A. Shah, J. R. Bowen, P. D. Pizzutillo, et al.
Neurophysiological Detection of Impending Spinal Cord Injury During Scoliosis Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., November 1, 2007; 89(11): 2440 - 2449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
V. J. Devlin and D. M. Schwartz
Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring During Spinal Surgery
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., September 1, 2007; 15(9): 549 - 560.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
J. Y. Lee, D. M. Schwartz, D. G. Anderson, and A. S. Hilibrand
Epidural Hematoma Causing Dense Paralysis After Anterior Cervical Corpectomy. A Report of Two Cases
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2006; 88(1): 198 - 201.
[Full Text] [PDF]