Vigilancia neurofisiológica transoperatoria multimodal en cirugía de columna

ABSTRACT Summary Background: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IOM) during spine surgery consists of several functional tests including somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), motor evoked potentials (MEPs), dermatomal potentials (DPs) and EMG (electromyography). Permanent neurological damage after spine surgery performed without intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring is frequent and often very costly. The main goal of IOM is the immediate detection, prevention and correction of neurological damage during surgery, which may go unnoticed without using these tests. Methods: A total of 351 clinical files of patients with spinal surgery and continuous neurophysiological monitoring were transversally and descriptively reviewed from 2007 to 2008. Results: There were 135 male patients (38.46%) and 216 female patients (61.54%); 82% of the cases were osteodiscal pathology with or without medullar involvement, 12% were patients with traumatic injuries, 4% with scoliosis and 2% had medullary tumors. Regarding localization, 62.1% were lumbar, 33% cervical, 4.3% thoracic and 0.5% sacral involvement; 12.4% of our cases showed significant improvement of the basal responses on SSEPs, and 56.8% showed no significant change during the procedure. In 28.4% of the cases, the surgical team had to be advised of potential neurological damage and in 2.4% there was absence of neurophysiological responses. No patient showed complete loss of any neurophysiological response. All patients reported clinical improvement after hospital discharge. Conclusions: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring may help avoid certain neurological risks during spine surgery, which may go unnoticed without the use of this technique.

  • The Medical journal of Australia 02/1991; 154(2):78-9. · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring techniques have evolved as the complexity of spinal surgery has increased and the limitations of individual modalities have become apparent. Current monitoring strategies include a combination of techniques directed toward detecting changes in sensory, motor, and nerve root function. Close coordination and communication between the monitoring personnel, surgeon, and anesthesiologist is essential to effective intraoperative monitoring.
    Neurosurgery Clinics of North America 08/2006; 17(3):205-26, v. · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the many reports attesting to the efficacy of intraoperative somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in reducing the prevalence of iatrogenic spinal cord injury during corrective scoliosis surgery, these afferent neurophysiological signals can provide only indirect evidence of injury to the motor tracts since they monitor posterior column function. Early reports on the use of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials to monitor the corticospinal motor tracts directly suggested that the method holds great promise for improving detection of emerging spinal cord injury. We sought to compare the efficacy of these two methods of monitoring to detect impending iatrogenic neural injury during scoliosis surgery. We reviewed the intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring records of 1121 consecutive patients (834 female and 287 male) with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (mean age, 13.9 years) treated between 2000 and 2004 at four pediatric spine centers. The same group of experienced surgical neurophysiologists monitored spinal cord function in all patients with use of a standardized multimodality technique with the patient under total intravenous anesthesia. A relevant neurophysiological change (an alert) was defined as a reduction in amplitude (unilateral or bilateral) of at least 50% for somatosensory evoked potentials and at least 65% for transcranial electric motor evoked potentials compared with baseline. Thirty-eight (3.4%) of the 1121 patients had recordings that met the criteria for a relevant signal change (i.e., an alert). Of those thirty-eight patients, seventeen showed suppression of the amplitude of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials in excess of 65% without any evidence of changes in somatosensory evoked potentials. In nine of the thirty-eight patients, the signal change was related to hypotension and was corrected with augmentation of the blood pressure. The remaining twenty-nine patients had an alert that was related directly to a surgical maneuver. Three alerts occurred following segmental vessel clamping, and the remaining twenty-six were related to posterior instrumentation and correction. Nine (35%) of these twenty-six patients with an instrumentation-related alert, or 0.8% of the cohort, awoke with a transient motor and/or sensory deficit. Seven of these nine patients presented solely with a motor deficit, which was detected by intraoperative monitoring of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials in all cases, and two patients had only sensory symptoms. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring failed to identify a motor deficit in four of the seven patients with a confirmed motor deficit. Furthermore, when changes in somatosensory evoked potentials occurred, they lagged behind the changes in transcranial electric motor evoked potentials by an average of approximately five minutes. With an appropriate response to the alert, the motor or sensory deficit resolved in all nine patients within one to ninety days. This study underscores the advantage of monitoring the spinal cord motor tracts directly by recording transcranial electric motor evoked potentials in addition to somatosensory evoked potentials. Transcranial electric motor evoked potentials are exquisitely sensitive to altered spinal cord blood flow due to either hypotension or a vascular insult. Moreover, changes in transcranial electric motor evoked potentials are detected earlier than are changes in somatosensory evoked potentials, thereby facilitating more rapid identification of impending spinal cord injury.
    The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 12/2007; 89(11):2440-9. · 3.23 Impact Factor